Posts by James Lee77

If we’re talking about the philosophy sub, I feel like the questions should be framed a bit differently.

Like, take a question like "is there hope for our country?" That kind of assumes we actually know what "our country" is supposed to be hoping for. But is that even clear? I mean, wouldn't it be better to ask, "what can our country actually hope for?" Or maybe, "what kind of future would be good for us, and which ones should we avoid?" Or even, "how can 'we' decide on a direction if nobody can agree on what the best outcome actually looks like?" Something like that.

Or, instead of asking "is democracy alive in America," why not start with things like "what even is democracy?" or "does democracy exist anywhere at all?" or "is it even a good thing for democracy to exist somewhere?" or "should it be everywhere?" or "is it actually a good thing for it to exist here in the States?"... Because the way people usually ask it, they're just assuming it's obvious that democracy exists elsewhere, that we all know what it is, and that the whole point is just whether we have it or if it's better than some dictatorship or communism. Honestly, those assumptions are pretty questionable. 🤷

analogsurfer15 said:Hmm, that’s not what I meant at all. I don't see asking for forgiveness as humiliating—honestly, it shows the culprit actually has a conscience, assuming we aren't just talking about those empty, hollow apologies— I'm sorry, forgive me, which people toss around way too easily. To me, you can only truly feel the need to ask for forgiveness if you actually identify with the victim and the loss they're suffering because of your actions. It’s only when you realize exactly what you stripped away from them that you can even begin to understand what they might need from you. And it's only *after* that apology that you can actually move forward... you can find peace not just with the other person (if they actually grant it), but with yourself, right?

If we're talking about humiliation, it's the victim who feels it, not the one at fault. Victims don't need pity—though empathy is vital just so the culprit understands the damage done—but pity isn't justice. If you intentionally drive someone into a corner, say, leave them totally broke like someone losing everything in a massive Wall Street crash, the only real justice is making things right again. Only then can you ask for forgiveness, and only then can the victim potentially give it. Just saying I'm sorry isn't enough to settle the score; the person at fault has to feel that same sense of loss themselves. That's the only way to respect the victim. Offering forgiveness without any actual restitution is what truly humiliates the victim. In that light, some religious ideas of "just forgive" seem almost ridiculous... or just sad, because they ignore basic human dignity.

Sure, forgiving someone over material stuff is easy, but when it comes to emotional wreckage, it's a whole different beast. That's why I said forgiveness is possible, except when it simply isn't. Theoretically, anything can be forgiven, but you can only really know that by living through it... emotions have a way of completely hijacking your logic, don't they?

Bottom line—the culprit doesn't get humiliated, but the victim sure can.
🙂

Nah, asking for forgiveness is asking too much. A victim shouldn't be forced to decide whether or not to give it just because someone asked. Honestly, the person who messed up isn't even in a position to ask for anything from the victim. Like, where do they get the right to demand anything at all?

So, yeah, "forgive me" feels like overkill. A sincere "I'm sorry" should be enough. And I don't mean a fake, polite "sorry"—I mean real, gut-wrenching regret. Anyone who's ever truly felt bad about something they did knows how much that actually hurts... 🤷 . When you say that, you're basically putting yourself at the mercy of the other person's judgment. You're letting them decide how to react. It makes you more vulnerable than if you were just demanding forgiveness. And I guess that's actually fair. They should be exposed like that.

Plus, it's often super unclear who even has the authority to forgive. Like, what if someone lost their life? Who gets to forgive on behalf of the person who was killed? Does the family have that right? Wouldn't they just see the request as totally unreasonable? 🤷 That's why I stick with "I'm sorry" instead of "forgive me." If forgiveness follows a real apology, then hey, I'll take it gladly. If it doesn't? Well, it'll hurt more, but I guess I just have to accept that too. I don't really have a choice in the matter.

Look, I’m not trying to get all deep or give some big "philosophical" lecture here, and I definitely won't pretend I've got this all figured out, but this is just how I see things...

If someone messes up, they should just say, "I'm sorry." Period. That's it. (Maybe add an "I'm sorry, I didn't realize..." if they actually messed up because they just didn't know better.)
The person at fault shouldn't be saying "please forgive me"—they aren't in any position to ask anything from the victim, including forgiveness. Just saying "I'm sorry" is plenty; asking for forgiveness is already pushing it too far.

Once the person who messed up expresses regret (of their own free will, obviously), then it's totally up to the victim to decide if they want to forgive them. Not only does the offender have no right to ask for forgiveness, but honestly, nobody has the right to demand it from a victim. It's entirely up to the victim to make that call after the regret has been shown.

So, I guess reconciliation starts when the person who did wrong shows they feel bad. And it ends when the victim decides to forgive. Sure, someone can reach out an olive branch, but if it gets rejected—well, the person who messed up has absolutely no right to be upset about it.

Edward Flores4 said:It looks like you might not be all that familiar with Parkinson’s Law—which basically suggests that any institution once it's fully established is going to keep pushing itself forward and justifying its own existence, even if the original reason it was ever created has completely vanished into thin air. It's like those massive corporate bureaucracies we see in places like DC or New York—they just keep expanding and spinning their wheels regardless of whether they're actually accomplishing anything anymore.

It really speaks volumes about the institutions themselves—and I mean this in a way that’s pretty independent of their actual intentions. Even if their initial goals weren't necessarily bad to begin with, you can see how things have drifted. It's like when a small, well-meaning local charity starts growing too fast; they might start out just wanting to help the neighborhood, but once they become this massive, bureaucratic machine, the original mission gets lost in all the red tape and systemic momentum. You end up looking at the structure of the organization rather than the heart of why it was built in the first place.

But look, that whole assumption is basically unshakeable—even if it feels pretty arbitrary when you really sit down and think about it.

So, let me get this straight—you’re suggesting that because gravity is non-invertible, it somehow makes the whole force arbitrary? That's an interesting way to look at it. But it raises a massive question: does this "arbitrariness" actually weaken the pull, or does it still slam you into the ground just as hard regardless of whether we call it random or divine?

Look, here’s the thing—no matter how many examples you throw at me of people setting up institutions like hospitals or universities specifically to help others, you can always twist the narrative to claim they were actually just looking out for themselves. It’s one of those things where, if you try hard enough, you can argue that personal gain was the underlying motive behind any act of charity or public service. Because you can always find some way to frame it that way, I just think the whole thesis is pretty arbitrary. It really comes down to how you choose to spin the story.

You really have a way of keeping me on my toes... I mean, you're pointing out that in one thread I’m arguing schools are basically just indoctrination machines for the masses, but then in another, I’m holding them up as a prime example of the "greater good." It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?

I’ve always felt that schools function more like state-run temples than actual centers of learning—where the classrooms are basically just the priest's vestments. The reality is that the students themselves? They aren't even the priority. At no point in this whole setup has their actual benefit been the main focus. Instead, everything seems to be secondary, arbitrary, and frankly, pretty hit-or-miss.

I actually see things a bit differently—I truly believe that people can build institutions with the best possible intentions toward their fellow citizens, and that, from time to time, those organizations actually end up doing exactly what they were designed to do.

Just because a slap to the face might occasionally wake someone up—doesn't mean I have any business going around slapping people whenever I feel like it.

When it comes to the Dalai Lama...
Honestly, I don't think it's even that easy to put a finger on exactly what we're looking at here—it’s one of those things where you try to wrap your head around it, but the more you dig, the harder it gets to make a solid call.

Hypocrisy is one of those things you can spot from a mile away—honestly, it’s practically glowing under a spotlight. It’s just so incredibly easy to see when someone isn't walking the walk.

Nah. The whole gravity thing wasn't really about testing it here on Earth—where, you know, it basically acts on everything pretty much the same way—but more about how planets actually behave in relation to the sun. Once Isaac Newton saw that his formula perfectly explained why planets orbit the sun the way they do, that’s when he really proved his theory was on the money.
So, I guess gravity is basically falsifiable. Like, it’s actually pretty easy to imagine what kind of experiment would prove the law of gravity wrong. The only reason we still call it a law is because nobody has actually pulled off an experiment like that yet. It just shows the law works... for now.
Honestly, I don't think there's any experience out there powerful enough to make you realize that the idea "EVERY institution exists primarily to serve its founders" is actually wrong. I mean, maybe I'm tripping, but I just can't see it happening.

You totally fascinate me... I mean, one minute you're wrapping up a thread by saying schools are just tools to indoctrinate the masses, and then in another one, you’re out here using them as the prime example of the "greater good." I guess I'm just confused.

So, I actually meant universities. But whatever, you kind of glossed over my whole point there. I feel like schools in today's society are just broken, mostly because the society itself is pretty messed up. That doesn't mean that every single society is necessarily sick, or that any society with schools is automatically doomed, I guess.

Just because a slap might wake someone up sometimes... doesn't mean it's okay for me to go around slapping people all the time. I guess.

But hey, that alone is enough to totally wreck the whole "you NEVER need to give someone a slap" argument. I mean, the entire debate basically boils down to your "EVERYTHING" stance.

Brian Foster3 said:Edward Flores4 is spot on here, but honestly, James Lee77 is saying the exact same thing.
Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we do, absolutely everything, is driven by pure, unadulterated self-interest, especially those times when we pretend we're acting "for the greater good." It’s all a facade because helping someone else usually ends up feeding our own egos or lining our own pockets, and honestly, that selfish streak is the only reason we even bother to step up and act like we care in the first place.

Let’s be real for a second: giving to others in this world is nothing more than a high-level, sophisticated way of being selfish—it's all just a calculated move to serve your own interests. Honestly, whenever you hear someone prattle on about having "the best intentions toward others," it’s always rooted in having the best intentions for themselves.

Okay, let's say you're right. If that's how it works, then saying "he's doing it for his own benefit" becomes totally pointless.

Like, look at it this way. Someone has a bunch of cash, and before they die, they decide to spend it. If they choose to buy weapons and bomb some small town, according to your logic, they're doing that for their own benefit. But if they decide to feed the hungry, they're also doing that for their own benefit under your theory. So, the actual difference between "bombing innocents" and "feeding the hungry" isn't whether we're being selfish or not—it's something else entirely. If you're right, then in every single scenario, it's meaningless to say "they're doing it for themselves."

The real question is: can an institution actually serve anyone other than its founder? I personally think they can.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

If you start with that mindset, I guess you’re never going to see things any other way.
But honestly, that assumption is kind of unshakeable, which makes it pretty arbitrary. Like, no matter how many examples someone brings up—saying people founded hospitals or universities just to help others—you could always twist it and claim they did it for some personal gain. You can basically argue that personal interest is the motive for anything. So, the whole idea feels a bit forced to me.

Personally, I actually believe people can build institutions with the best intentions for others, and yeah, sometimes those institutions actually do what they were meant to do.

As for the Dalai Lama, it’s pretty obvious that’s a political institution, and it doesn't really have anything to do with levels of mystical insight. Whether that organization—which is supposed to be working for the good of the Tibetan people—is actually effective or not? Man, I wouldn't even try to judge that. I think it's probably too hard to tell.

Starting point

So, instead of the quiet sage (from Theravada Buddhism) who basically escapes culture—like, they’ve truly "passed away" by shedding language and all that cultural baggage—the bodhisattva (in Mahayana Buddhism) actually jumps back into the fray after finding enlightenment. They dive right back into society to help out.

I think there’s a super clear parallel here to that famous Platonov allegory about the cave: the bodhisattva is different from the Theravada quiet sage because while the latter just leaves the worldly stuff behind forever, the bodhisattva heads straight back into the cave.

It’s kind of like how if the second red pill is about breaking out of the Matrix or the cave, the third one is about heading right back inside.

Edward Flores4 said:I don't think anyone was actually talking about "existing outside" of culture—it's more about having an awareness of what culture actually *is*. There's this realization that once print media became a thing, culture transformed into something incredibly artificial, forced, and frankly, unhealthy. Think about it: editors at major American newspapers don't just edit text; they essentially architect the entire cultural landscape. It feels like more time and energy goes into a glossy beer ad in a Sunday paper than into any actual investigative journalism or thoughtful editorial content. Those ads look world-class, while the articles themselves feel like they were written for people who can barely grasp basic concepts. If we accept that a culture is defined by what it prioritizes, then it's painfully obvious that our modern "culture" shifted its focus from people to products ages ago. Instead of promoting human values, it pushes status symbols and consumerism. So, what is this thing we're dealing with? Is it even culture at all, or are we just using the word "culture" out of sheer sentimentality because it makes us feel a little more comfortable?

If there's anyone on this forum who honestly believes they’ve managed to enrich, change, or shape culture through their own work or mere presence—please, step forward. I'd love to see it. But from where I'm sitting, culture today is susceptible to almost everything except the very people who are forced to live within it.

Just because we can't "escape" culture doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it, or that we aren't allowed to maintain a healthy, critical distance from it. As long as we keep believing in "culture" as if it's something inherently ours to cherish, it’s going to continue having a devastating effect on the individual.

Yeah, okay, you're switching between talking about "our culture" and just culture in general. I guess it's like saying just because the air in New York City is trashed, it doesn't mean breathing isn't a good thing. Just because I agree with you about "our culture" doesn't mean I think humans can totally dodge culture altogether.

So, if we're talking about culture as a whole, I'd argue that when people live together, they inevitably build one. Still, I think an individual can hit these moments where all those cultural definitions just... crack. And through those cracks, you get a glimpse of a reality that hasn't been symbolized yet—something that isn't part of the "culture" script. You could call those moments silence, especially if you view culture and symbolism as being tied to language.

If someone keeps talking to others after having one of those flashes, they're jumping right back into the cultural machine. But maybe they can take that glimpse of something beyond culture—that moment of pure insight—and use it to affect things in a totally different way. That's what I'd call creativity.

Think of it like Plato's allegory: only the person who actually left the cave (culture) and saw reality for what it is can make the cave better when they return. They bring back signs pointing outward. (Though, I guess it's probably inevitable that people will just mistake the signpost for the destination—kind of like staring at your finger instead of the Moon it's pointing toward.)

Honestly, our culture gave up on pointing to anything besides itself a long time ago. It doesn't even believe there's anything left outside the bubble to point to. 🤷

So, there are basically two different ways to look at Aristotle’s "definitions of man"— Man, I can't stop thinking about that whole *zoon politikon* concept. It’s like, we’re basically wired to be social creatures, right? I guess it’s just part of being human—we aren't meant to go it alone. Maybe that's why everything feels so intense lately. Just some food for thought, I guess. "Social animal," you know... that living thing that thrives in... I guess I'm just overthinking things, but honestly? It feels like we’re all just drifting through this giant, messy urban sprawl without any real sense of direction. Maybe it's just me, though.It looks like you only sent a fragment! I can't really work with just a couple of words and some punctuation. Send over the full post you want me to tackle, and I'll get right on it. I'm ready to flip it into something that sounds totally natural and American. I guess I'm just totally lost on how to get into Zoom... like, seriously, does anyone actually know where the login button is? Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but I feel like I'm hitting a wall here. Help a guy out! It’s like... that living, breathing thing that talks? They just sort of click together. I mean, at the end of the day, humans are basically just social animals that live in groups. That's just how it works, I guess.I mean, honestly? It’s all about that old-school communism vibe. I guess we're just seeing it all over again.Just because he’s talking, that's why... I guess. Maybe? I guess I'm just gonna say it... communist.It’s all about that connection, you know? Like, people talk and actually engage because they’re part of a community. It just goes both ways.

Culture is basically just the shared story of a group of people, I guess. It’s what brings everyone together.

I mean, anyone talking about living outside of culture is basically proving they're part of one just by speaking. Like, you’re participating in the culture and helping shape its whole collective story just by opening your mouth. It’s kind of wild when you think about it.

Conformism is basically just participating in culture without actually creating anything; but I guess not everything that counts as being part of a culture is mindless conformity.

ironmarlin1 said:Fair enough, I think I follow your train of thought. You're touching on science and the idea that something like the theory of evolution isn't just a shared opinion, but something grounded in undeniable evidence. However, my focus is more specifically on the philosophical side of things—the question of whether referring to an object in nature is somehow (ontologically?) relative. Much like Quineov's "Gavagai" thought experiment.

I feel like language isn't even really about "things" to begin with, it's more about relationships. So, if "relative" means "in relation to something," then yeah, I'm with you there.
But I guess those relationships that language points to aren't just totally random, or at least they aren't completely arbitrary. 🤷

William Williams27 said:As a skydiver... I haven't really read much about this or spent a lot of time dwelling on it lately—my focus just isn't where it used to be. But one thought immediately popped into my head and I had to share it... wouldn't it make sense that if something is made up of fewer basic elements, it would naturally be more similar to another entity of that kind than something way more complex?

Yeah, but the real question is where we get the idea that there's even such a thing as a "basic substance" made up of perfectly identical "elementary particles," especially since we never actually encounter anything perfectly identical in our own experience, right?

So, it feels like this isn't really based on any actual observation. 🤔

It’s not like I’m saying truth is "unreachable," it’s more like any description we come up with is just incomplete. There are experiences out there that simply can't be put into words.

And as for why I’m convinced there’s an actual truth out there, I think I already touched on it here:

James Lee77 said:Totally. But language isn't "the thing itself." A description—whether it's words, sentences, sketches, or math formulas—tries to mirror the structure of the actual object. If the description is actually true, then its structure should be pretty close to the structure of the real thing.
The problem is, since we can also just say things that aren't true, the structure of a description can be totally random. In those cases, it doesn't match any real structure at all.

Is an electron from the early 1900s the exact same thing as an electron today?

Of course it is. I mean, physics relies on the whole idea that an electron today is the same as an electron was right after the Big Bang.
I don't see how anyone could trust physical theories if they didn't believe in the permanence of physical objects (including laws of physics, too).🤷

Are we just using some metaphysical glue to stick words onto real objects, or are they just part of whatever theory we have right now?

It’s not about "glue." It’s more that the structures in our descriptions correspond to—or are similar to—the structures of reality.

Sure, you could argue that reality doesn't actually have any structure and that every structure we see is just something humans made up. I don't buy that, though. 🤷 If that were true, the difference between a "true" invention and a "false" one would be purely conventional—like, truth would just be whatever the majority thinks, or whatever people in power decide it is. But I don't believe that—I really think a single person can be right (telling the truth) even when they're going against the crowd or the people in charge.

If truth was just a matter of consensus, then there wouldn't be any real difference between academic peer reviews, church councils, or political conventions. You'd just have a bunch of people who happen to hold authority under the current political climate getting together to vote on what the truth should be.

But that isn't truth, no matter how much they agree. Truth isn't found in a consensus; it's about stating what actually is.

ironmarlin1 said:But do you honestly believe that a complete description is even possible in principle?

It becomes increasingly obvious that there are sometimes multiple ways to accurately describe something—yet that doesn't imply that reality itself is somehow fragmented or non-singular.

If the very concept of existence and the objects within it is relative, then a complete description simply cannot exist, not even as a theoretical possibility.

That was an incomplete description, and partially inaccurate at that. And frankly, the current one is incomplete too. For all we know, it might also be somewhat inaccurate.

You can't ignore the fact that, in this context, objects are essentially constructs of the imagination used to make sense of our experiences. Because of that, I suspect your thesis regarding "real things" is fundamentally flawed.

I mean, I don't think so.

You can't ignore the fact that objects, in that sense, are just part of an imagination used to explain our experiences. So, I guess your whole idea about "real things" is kind of off.

I'm lost. 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:It’s not just that complication, though; the real problem for your argument is that even falsehoods possess their own mathematical structures. If you insist on clinging to this idea of a "beautiful" mathematics embedded within the fabric of nature, then you have to concede that all those erroneous theories throughout history also possessed a certain "beautiful" structural integrity. Take the old model of an electron orbiting a nucleus, for instance. To be perfectly honest, I don't see anything remotely elegant about the number pi or the constant e.🤷

Of course. In fact, all physical theories rest upon the fundamental assumption that an electron today is essentially the same entity as an electron was at the dawn of the twentieth century, or even shortly after the Big Bang.
I struggle to see how anyone who doubts that continuity—that persistent stability of physical objects and laws—could possibly believe in the truth of any physical theory. 🤷 It isn't about just forcing things to fit; it's the idea that the structures used in our descriptions correspond to, or rather, mimic the structures of reality.

My point was specifically that what we were referring to as an electron wasn't actually an electron. Look at the Boeing model of the atom, for example. How can we claim to be referring to something that doesn't truly exist? If you rely on a description—mathematical or otherwise—as the vehicle through which we make references, then it becomes impossible to refer to something that lacks that underlying reality.

Certainly, one could argue that reality possesses no inherent structure whatsoever and that every structure we perceive is merely a human invention. Personally, I don't buy that. 🤷 Under that logic, the distinction between a true invention and a false one would be purely conventional—truth would simply become a matter of consensus, perhaps defined by whatever the majority believes or by whoever holds political power at the moment. But I reject that; I believe a single individual can be right, speaking the truth, even when they find themselves at odds with the masses or the powers that be.

But what happens when you're faced with two equivalent theories—two different models that both perfectly account for our observations? If you insist that there must be one singular, true description, how on earth are we supposed to choose? To me, it seems a unique, definitive description could only exist if there were some Great Mind that had meticulously choreographed everything in one specific way. However, much like that discussion on natural sciences where I saw no logical reason to prefer the number three over seven, there is no decisive way to choose here either. Concepts like "existence" and "objects" are somewhat relative; that doesn't mean they can be inaccurate, but it does mean there isn't necessarily one solitary, absolute truth waiting to be found.

I always used to say "more or less" when I was trying to give a true description. Honestly, it feels like no description is ever actually complete. Even when you think you've nailed it, there’s always some extra stuff left out that you didn't mention. I guess that means the best of us might just be talking in circles. Truth. I guess I'm just getting started... maybe? Hang on, let me get my thoughts together. I'll be right back! Just keeping it real. No lies here....but never even once. The whole truth..

So, here's how I see it: reality is just insanely complex. Like, infinitely layered. Any way you try to describe it, you're really just getting one tiny, partial slice of that massive complexity. I guess depending on which specific part of this crazy mess you decide to focus on, certain perspectives might seem more useful or relevant than others. But honestly? None of them give you the full picture. Not even close.

I guess it’s becoming pretty obvious that there can be more than one right way to describe something—but that doesn't mean reality itself isn't just one single thing.

It’s not just about being wrong; the real problem is that your whole argument relies on the idea that even lies have some kind of mathematical structure. I mean, if you’re going to insist that there's this "beautiful" math baked right into nature, then you basically have to admit that every single flawed theory throughout history also had its own "beautiful" structure. Like, take an electron orbiting a nucleus, for instance. Honestly? I don't see anything elegant about Pi or e at all. 🤷

Look, I mean, "beauty" alone isn't really enough to get the job done—but maybe it's still a necessary starting point? I guess. 🤷

I was kind of aiming for the idea that what we’ve been calling an electron isn't actually an electron. Like, maybe think about how the Boeing model of the atom works.

That description was totally half-baked and, honestly, kind of wrong. Even the current version feels like it's missing a bunch of stuff. And who knows, maybe it’s still not even fully accurate? I guess.

Not to go totally off-topic here, but I wanted to start this new thread based on what was being said over in the music section:

servantes said:It’s pretty wild how everything complex—from living creatures down to basic matter—is totally unique. There isn't a single person, planet, or sun in this entire universe that's an exact copy of another...

But in physics, every single elementary particle is considered identical to any other.

So, honestly, are there actually two identical things created by nature? Like, two perfectly identical leaves, or two absolutely identical eggs? It feels like the answer is no.

But when we talk about those "elementary particles" that make up everything, we just assume they're all the same. So where does all that variety actually come from?

If I'm following servantes correctly, he thinks it comes from "complexity." Basically, these identical, simple little subatomic particles somehow line up, and that specific arrangement creates a one-of-a-kind object in our world every single time.

But here's the thing—if we can't find two identical natural objects anywhere around us, why do we act like the tiny stuff we can barely see is perfectly identical?

I guess it's mostly just a way of doing things: if we can't spot a difference between two things, we just call them equal.

Okay, so we "call" them that, but why would we actually believe they're identical if we've never even seen two truly identical things in person? 🤷

So, is "perfect equality" just a byproduct of our limited vision? Like, things look identical just because we can't see the tiny differences?

Maybe "perfect equality" is just something that exists in math, while in the real world, anything "equal" is really just some kind of similarity (assuming similar means being both the same and different at once) rather than true equality?

You said the exact same thing in this post:

fadedbison17 said:The difference between hydrogen and helium is real and exists regardless of us—I get that. I think you either misread me or I didn't phrase things quite right...

You can't claim the difference between hydrogen and helium is independent of humans because it was a human who distinguished one from the other using some criteria (which I don't know, like I said). Your statement implies you've already differentiated the two—helium and hydrogen—so you've already established a criterion, which means the distinction is done. You can't jump back now and pretend there's no difference, otherwise, helium and hydrogen wouldn't even exist as separate things.

Again, jumping to conclusions way too fast. Slow down a bit... how about this:

I feel like there's something implied in what you just said:
- I distinguish things.
- I count.
- I noticed two different things.
- I noticed the difference between those two things is numerical.

It seems to me you're skipping right past steps 2, 3, and 4 to jump straight to the conclusion that numbers are "built into nature."

What do you think?

I feel like you're pulling my leg here. 🙂

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 guess this question is actually a perfect example of why splitting things into subjective vs. objective doesn't really get you anywhere. It’s way more useful to look at whether something is arbitrary vs. near-arbitrary. It's kind of how the Greeks used to frame things: is something just arbitrary—basically just a convention based on nomos (human laws and agreements)—or is it natural, following physis (the actual nature of things)?

If you dig into this specific example, you can see why that distinction matters so much.

The poles are just the points where the Earth's surface meets its axis of rotation. So, there are exactly two of them, and that isn't arbitrary at all. The axis itself isn't some random choice either.

Parallels are just lines created by slicing the Earth's surface with a plane perpendicular to that axis.
So, why perpendicular? Why not, I don't know, at a 76-degree angle? That's where our human obsession with symmetry comes in. Is that craving for symmetry totally random or just something we picked up from our culture? I honestly don't know. But I do think it's a universal human thing.

Out of all those parallels, there’s exactly one that stands out as unique—mostly because it doesn't have a symmetrical partner and it's the maximum point. That's the equator. There’s nothing arbitrary about that part.

You can really see the difference between arbitrary and near-arbitrary if you compare the equator to the prime meridian.
Meridians are lines made by planes that pass through the Earth's poles and intersect the surface. There are infinitely many of them. Any single one could be called the "zero" meridian; there's no built-in reason why the one passing through Greenwich has to be the starting point.
That's totally different from the equator. Out of an infinite number of parallels, the equator is clearly the best candidate to be the zero parallel. In terms of physis, it stands out among the rest.
Deciding that the Greenwich meridian is the zero line was purely political—it basically just came down to the power the United Kingdom held when the decision was made. In a different era, the prime meridian probably would've run through Rome, or Paris, or New York City, or Beijing, or Tehran. So yeah, it's just an arbitrary convention; it's the prime meridian because of nomos.

ironmarlin1 said:As far as I’m concerned, whether we’re talking about a kitchen table, a redwood tree, a train station, or even molecules, atoms, and electrons, they are all just as much "inventions" as numbers are. We essentially conjure these concepts up to make sense of our daily experiences. To claim something is truly real, you have to be able to point to it through language, but there's a catch: the very language we choose is dictated by our current theories of reality or our scientific models. For instance, is an electron as understood at the dawn of the twentieth century actually the same thing as the electron we discuss today? Are we merely applying a sort of metaphysical glue, sticking labels onto objects in reality, or are those objects simply constructs within our prevailing theory?

Totally. But language isn't "the thing itself." A description—whether it's words, sentences, sketches, or math formulas—tries to mirror the structure of the actual object. If the description is actually true, then its structure should be pretty close to the structure of the real thing.
The problem is, since we can also just say things that aren't true, the structure of a description can be totally random. In those cases, it doesn't match any real structure at all.

Is an electron from the early 1900s the exact same thing as an electron today?

Of course it is. I mean, physics relies on the whole idea that an electron today is the same as an electron was right after the Big Bang.
I don't see how anyone could trust physical theories if they didn't believe in the permanence of physical objects (including laws of physics, too).🤷

Are we just using some metaphysical glue to stick words onto real objects, or are they just part of whatever theory we have right now?

It’s not about "glue." It’s more that the structures in our descriptions correspond to—or are similar to—the structures of reality.

Sure, you could argue that reality doesn't actually have any structure and that every structure we see is just something humans made up. I don't buy that, though. 🤷 If that were true, the difference between a "true" invention and a "false" one would be purely conventional—like, truth would just be whatever the majority thinks, or whatever people in power decide it is. But I don't believe that—I really think a single person can be right (telling the truth) even when they're going against the crowd or the people in charge.

fadedbison17 said:You keep asking questions while totally ignoring the context. You want these obvious answers, but you don't want to take responsibility for the fact that *you*, being a human, are the one asking the question in the first place.

Look, I'm telling you that humans acquire knowledge about objective reality by distinguishing between objects. And those objects don't distinguish themselves—that's a human capability.
Plus, we learn letters, numbers, and all that stuff, so there's zero sense in talking about math from the perspective of The Sun and pretending you aren't human—because if you weren't human, neither numbers, nor The Sun, nor even this text would exist. Get it? You're losing the plot here...

Just accept that you learned numbers as a human and then applied them to describe things. Then you'll see how nonsensical it is to claim The Sun can count or has any kind of relationship with math.

P.S. I'm not a Kantian. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not jumping to conclusions about you, so please don't do it to me. 😉

Here's a quote from an old post of mine about what you're getting at (the second half of your question)...

There he goes again. Look, I'm not saying the Sun distinguishes things, and I'm definitely not saying the Sun counts.

What I am saying is that if a difference exists independently of humans, and if that difference can be expressed as a number, then numbers must exist independently of humans too.

Now, you could argue that there's no difference between hydrogen and helium that doesn't rely on a human mind, but if you go that route, you have to admit there's no difference between a crow and the Sun either.
I guess you're not gonna like that.

Or, you could say there's a difference between hydrogen and helium that exists regardless of us, but that it isn't a number.
If you say that, you better be able to explain what that difference is if it's not a number.

You could also just dodge the hard questions and the messy consequences of your own logic by rambling on about everything and anything.