On objective existence and objectivism

Dennis Rogers6 said:But why wouldn't numbers "just exist"? Is there even a question to be asked there?

I can't help but feel the world is drifting in that exact direction regarding religion, too. In fact, looking back at history, hasn't religion played quite a significant role in facilitating that very decline?

And what about something like radical extremist fanaticism?

To my mind, the reality is quite the opposite—I find I am only truly free once I cast aside all preconceived convictions. As Nietzsche so poignantly put it, "convictions are prisons."

ironmarlin1 said:That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Look, nature isn't some set convention. Honestly? My whole perception of nature *is* the convention. That’s why I have to stay on my toes and be constantly mindful of that one specific fact: if I’m not careful, I’ll end up mistaking my own perception for actual reality. Think about a physicist for a second. They’re doing this dance every single day! They’ve got their perceptions, their concepts, and their conventions, but they’re constantly putting all of them through the ringer to test them out. Of course, even their testing has its limits—let's be real. Total objectivity is basically this unreachable North Star. But isn't that the whole point? You strive toward that ideal, you constantly doubt what you think you know, and you never stop questioning and refining your reach. We can't just take things at face value, right? We shouldn't treat anything like an absolute truth—not even stuff like "good" or "evil." Everything is up for debate!

It just exists.

My view of nature is a convention.

ironmarlin1 said:But we aren't talking about some physical entity you can drop on your foot like a brick or point to on a map within the spacetime continuum. If it isn't a tangible thing, then where exactly is this supposed to reside, and if it lacks a physical footprint, why shouldn't we assume that objective value judgments don't exist either?

ironmarlin1 said:But you're tripping over your own logic here, given what you said about nature earlier:

It just exists.

Yet, that’s just your specific interpretation of nature. And, if we follow your own reasoning:

My view of nature is a convention.

So, you aren't being particularly clear, are you? 😉

Arthur Anderson49 said:I honestly don't see what's confusing about this or where the contradiction is supposed to be.

Nature just *is*. It’s an objective fact that exists completely independent of me. My perception of that nature, though? That’s necessarily subjective—it depends entirely on how my senses are working and how I choose to interpret all that incoming data.

The object itself and our perception of that object are two totally separate things.

EDIT:
Okay, I think I see where you're going with this; you're saying my idea—my actual belief that nature is objective and independent—is itself a subjective thing.

Alright, fine, on some abstract level, sure! I mean, maybe even your own existence is up for debate, right? Maybe I'm just sitting here in my own head having a conversation with myself, and you're just one of those little avatars of my consciousness.

But honestly, that kind of deep-dive thinking is totally impractical when you're trying to tackle moral questions. If I want to actually weigh in on ethics, I can't just spin around in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world is considered "real" or objective. Because let's face it: in a world where everything is purely subjective, morality just doesn't exist.

The standard (let's call it 'common sense') approach is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It's at that practical level that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' actually make sense and become useful.

Alright, I think I follow your train of thought; you’re suggesting that my conviction—this belief that nature is objective and exists regardless of me—is, in its own right, a subjective notion.

Fair enough, in a sense that holds true; though, one might argue even your own existence is debatable; perhaps I am just engaged in a mental monologue, debating myself while you exist merely as a digital avatar within the theater of my consciousness.

That said, leaning into that level of abstraction is utterly useless when one actually wants to grapple with moral questions. If I want to engage with ethics, I cannot afford to spin endlessly in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world can be deemed objective. In a universe where everything is purely subjective, morality ceases to exist entirely.

The standard, let's call it 'common sense' view, is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It’s at this level, naturally, that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' find their footing.

Mark Torres14 said:It exists in a "limbo" of possibility. Think quantum mechanics. Meaning—subjectivity—only kicks in once a human perceives it. I don't believe objective value judgments exist. Period. The whole concept of a "judgment" basically requires a conscious being aware of itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the foundation for making any judgment at all. Even if we run into another intelligence out there, I still don't think they'd have "objective" values. Essentially, claiming objective values exist implies the existence of God, if you define God as something sitting above and outside human consciousness.

I suspect that objective value judgments simply don't exist. The very concept of a "judgment" is, at its core, something only applicable to a self-aware being capable of reflecting on itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the bedrock upon which all judgment is built. Even if we were to encounter some other form of alien intelligence, I doubt they would possess any form of "objective" values either. Ultimately, claiming that objective values exist is essentially an argument for the existence of God, provided we define God as something existing entirely outside and above human consciousness.

ironmarlin1 said:But that right there is the contradiction. It couldn’t be more glaring. You’re essentially arguing that my statement—"Nature is an objective fact"—is itself merely a subjective judgment.

Alright, I think I follow your train of thought; you’re suggesting that my conviction—this belief that nature is objective and exists regardless of me—is, in its own right, a subjective notion.

That isn't what I'm attempting to say; rather, that is your interpretation of my position. My point is that value judgments are also objective, which allows me to sidestep the very "trap" of contradiction you seem to have fallen into. 😉

Fair enough, in a sense that holds true; though, one might argue even your own existence is debatable; perhaps I am just engaged in a mental monologue, debating myself while you exist merely as a digital avatar within the theater of my consciousness.

That said, leaning into that level of abstraction is utterly useless when one actually wants to grapple with moral questions. If I want to engage with ethics, I cannot afford to spin endlessly in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world can be deemed objective. In a universe where everything is purely subjective, morality ceases to exist entirely.

The thing is, you're the one who drifted toward solipsism by creating this rigid divide between the subject and nature, not me. I am arguing that value judgments possess objectivity.

The standard, let's call it 'common sense' view, is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It’s at this level, naturally, that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' find their footing.

Once again, you can't make claims about the world while trying to stand with one foot outside of it, as you are doing now; that is a direct path to solipsism. You claim your perception is that the world is objective, yet you immediately pivot to saying that very perception is subjective. 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:However, I wouldn't go so far as to say science itself becomes subjective; it only shifts into that territory if we decide that our value judgments are also subjective.

I suspect that objective value judgments simply don't exist. The very concept of a "judgment" is, at its core, something only applicable to a self-aware being capable of reflecting on itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the bedrock upon which all judgment is built. Even if we were to encounter some other form of alien intelligence, I doubt they would possess any form of "objective" values either. Ultimately, claiming that objective values exist is essentially an argument for the existence of God, provided we define God as something existing entirely outside and above human consciousness.

That logic only holds water if we insist on drawing a hard line between values and facts. But honestly, why should we be forced to accept such a rigid dichotomy in the first place?

That only implies the existence of God if we force a split between values and facts. Why even accept that division?

Mark Torres14 said:Look, David, I think I was pretty clear. When I talk about "judgment," I mean it doesn't exist outside of a human being. My starting point is simple: "Man is the measure of all things."
But within how we perceive those judgments, there are objective values based on empiricism and things you can actually verify. Basically, an objective reality exists independently of us, but an objective "judgment" about that reality can only be made by a person.

That only implies the existence of God if we force a split between values and facts. Why even accept that division?

Because facts are meaningless without some kind of value attached to them. There is no dichotomy—if there were, then "God would be the measure of all things." Facts and values are one and the same. And in my view, the human being is the starting point that provides subjectivity to that "one."

Because facts are essentially meaningless if they aren't anchored to some form of value. There isn't actually a dichotomy at play here, because if there were, then "God would be the measure of all things." "Facts and values" are two sides of the same coin. As I see it, the human being is the foundational point that injects subjectivity into that single entity.

ironmarlin1 said:👍

Because facts are essentially meaningless if they aren't anchored to some form of value. There isn't actually a dichotomy at play here, because if there were, then "God would be the measure of all things." "Facts and values" are two sides of the same coin. As I see it, the human being is the foundational point that injects subjectivity into that single entity.

I honestly don't see anything in that argument that I find disagreeable. "Facts" and "values" are effectively one and the same. To put it another way, scientific facts are themselves the byproduct of certain underlying values, yet we don't go around labeling them as subjective. My whole point is simply that this distinction isn't nearly as clear-cut as some people would prefer it to be.

ironmarlin1 said:Which leads us down a rabbit hole: does the equator actually exist in any meaningful sense if there isn't a subject there to witness it?

I’ll leave you all to it for now. It’s a full moon night here in San Diego, and I’m off to go live my life.😁

I might just show up there tomorrow myself (finally 🙏).

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Mark Torres14 said:It exists in a "limbo" of possibility. Think quantum mechanics. Meaning—subjectivity—only kicks in once a human perceives it. I don't believe objective value judgments exist. Period. The whole concept of a "judgment" basically requires a conscious being aware of itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the foundation for making any judgment at all. Even if we run into another intelligence out there, I still don't think they'd have "objective" values. Essentially, claiming objective values exist implies the existence of God, if you define God as something sitting above and outside human consciousness.

rowdyotter25 said:I gotta say, MrBeast, you're totally out of your depth here, which honestly catches me off guard. It happens to the best of us, I guess. 😉

Look, sure, we can't write out pi as a clean decimal, but we can express it perfectly through multiple different methods. Besides, pi exists because it defines the relationship between a circle's diameter and its circumference. Sure, pi is an abstract concept, but the existence of that mathematical relationship doesn't depend on whether some guy in a lab coat perceives it or not. Humans just picked a specific language to describe what's already happening.

Even if humanity vanished tomorrow, nobody would be calling it "pi," but circles and their ratios would still exist exactly as they are right now.

It's the same deal with numbers—they're just our way of mapping out patterns that are baked into reality. "1" doesn't exist without us, but the concept of "oneness" or having a single distinct object is a property of the universe regardless of us. So, numbers exist as a framework built on top of those truths, whether anyone is around to notice them or not.

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

rowdyotter25 said:That's an interesting way to look at it, mostly because quantum mechanics is basically what's blowing open all our old ways of thinking. You've got this wild idea that a particle isn't even really in any specific state until we force its hand and make it manifest a result, which explains why physicists spent decades losing their minds over experimental data while trying to cram the entire universe into these neat little models of particles just doing stuff.

The truth is, reality is just one continuous transition from one state to another, driven by some mathematical logic that the universe follows—logic that’s, frankly, pretty counterintuitive, so it took us forever to finally observe enough patterns to actually write down and describe how it works. Particles aren't the "thing" itself; they're just the mental map we use, and the weird behavior we see is just the underlying machinery showing through the cracks of our model.

It's the same deal with language: every concept we define is out there existing perfectly fine without us ever giving it a label. It's just a specific configuration of reality that we eventually decided to slap a name on.

swiftcobra15 said: First, a little joke: I once asked an old sailor who had crossed the equator dozens of times what it actually looks like. He just shot back, "It looks like any other stretch of ocean to me!"

Immanuel Kant essentially took Protagoras' idea and refined it, arguing that

By doing this, he philosophically dismantled the possibility of true objectivism, yet so many people still "philosophize" as if Immanuel Kant never even existed.

Numbers are certainly more "objective" than simple digits, but at the end of the day, both are human constructs.

We can only perceive things through our own unique human lens.

rowdyotter25 said:MrBeast, look, just because our description of something isn't pinpoint accurate doesn't mean the thing itself isn't real. It’s basic logic—I exist right now, even if your entire perception of me is stuck inside the text of my posts. If you suddenly blinked out of existence, I wouldn't just vanish into thin air 😁
.
It's the same deal with colors; "color" is just the label we slap onto the way certain electromagnetic frequencies reflect back at us. Or take Pi—that's just our shorthand for the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter. And honestly, you can write that down with perfect, surgical precision; in math, at least, we have the luxury of actually knowing what we're talking about
.
So, how can a ratio exist if it's supposedly just a product of human perception? It exists as a fundamental rule, a pattern baked into the universe that stays put whether anyone is watching or not. Maybe some alien intelligence out there perceives reality through a totally different lens and wouldn't bother naming it, but that doesn't change the fact that the math behind it is absolute
.
Even if we couldn't wrap our heads around the decimal expansion of Pi, we could still manipulate it algebraically simply because we understand what it represents. You just invent a symbol for it and call it a day. At the end of the day, worrying about how precisely we can write it out in base ten is a completely irrelevant limitation
.