On objective existence and objectivism

Arthur Anderson49 said:Okay, I can roll with that, but honestly, this means we really need to nail down a definition for the verb "to exist" just so this debate can actually move forward.

I'm not so sure that any kind of "ratio" in nature actually "exists." A ratio doesn't have a purpose or a function of its own. It only "exists" if there's an observer there to see it.

A ratio is the result of a comparison, and a comparison is an action, not a physical object. You can't have the action without someone or something doing the comparing. There are only the objects that *could* potentially be compared—but only if there's a comparator present.

In that sense, I'm also arguing that numbers don't exist. Numbers only exist as a possibility that comes to life once a counter shows up.

rowdyotter25 said:Let’s swap out the word 'exist' for 'real.' My take is that the patterns math describes are real—meaning they work perfectly fine regardless of whether we stumble upon them or invent some fancy way to write them down. Think about it: if some alien creature halfway across the galaxy decided to compare a circle's circumference to its diameter, they’d end up with the exact same value we call Pi, no matter how they perceive it, how they record it, or if they even bother calling it a ratio. Even in a cold, dead universe void of any intelligent life, that mathematical truth would still hold sway as a fundamental law, even if there isn't a single soul around to notice it.

There’s Pi as a human convention, sure, but then there’s Pi as the actual relationship it represents. And that underlying reality? That part is completely independent of us.

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

fadedbison17 said: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.

stretch;15138104 said:

Let’s swap out the verb 'to exist' for the adjective 'real.' My take is that the rules math describes are actually real—meaning they function perfectly fine regardless of us finding them or deciding how we want to write them down.

That isn't even what Tarski had in mind when he defined his meta-theory of truth, because he was strictly trying to revive and rehabilitate the correspondence theory, which teaches that truth is simply what aligns with the facts. He wanted that theory to deal a death blow to relativism and its messy interpretation of truth. However, I’m not really looking to defend a relativistic view of truth here, but rather an understanding of objective—or absolute—Truth, which this specific theory can't quite grasp...

The fact is, if any being were to think about comparing a circle to its diameter, they would arrive at a value equal to our number pi, no matter how that being perceives or records it, or whether they call it a ratio or something else entirely. Even in a universe devoid of intelligent life, that fact would still hold true as a fundamental law, even if nothing and no one was there to perceive it.

That argument just isn't logically consistent, and there is one singular reason why: everything that exists depends on subjective perception, or the way we perceive and receive what we are sensing. It is scientifically provable through quantum mechanics that the unprovable is, in fact, provable. If there were no mind within the universe, it wouldn't be possible to establish the "objectivity" you're claiming exists as a thing that persists without an observer. That's just a flawed conclusion. Objectivity is only possible from the standpoint of absolute reality—from God—and there are no other objectivities. Therefore, everything relies on the observer who stands outside the system itself, and since we humans are part of the universe as a total system, we aren't capable of grasping or determining objective reality...

It's quite simple. Pi isn't a physical object sitting somewhere in the universe; it's exclusively information stored by absolute objectivity. We don't "construct" pi in the sense of creating a thing, we spiritually perceive it from the information present in the universe. It exists as an entity within our internal perspective and is part of our inner world, but it isn't part of our external world as a physical object. That's why we discover it in nature, along with all the other natural laws and constants. Numbers aren't things that exist physically; they exist exclusively as spiritual entities within our inner world...

The fact is, if any being were to think about comparing a circle to its diameter, they would arrive at a value equal to our number pi, no matter how that being perceives or records it, or whether they call it a ratio or something else entirely. Even in a universe devoid of intelligent life, that fact would still hold true as a fundamental law, even if nothing and no one was there to perceive it.

That is nothing more than unprovable speculation! Look above. A circle as a physical thing doesn't even exist; it's just a construct of our minds. When we talk about a sphere, we're just applying those circular mental constructs to objects with dimensions...

There’s $\pi$ as a mathematical convention, and then there’s $\pi$ as the actual thing it represents. That underlying reality... it exists entirely independently of whoever is looking at it.

The number $\pi$ only really exists as a mental construct within information that permeates the entire universe, which means it’s always tied to the observer. Everything else is just empty speculation and nonsense...
or more accurately, they are just mathematical constructions and abstractions. And even then, it all comes back to the observer and the mind that creates or perceives it...

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?

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?

James Lee77;15177628 said:

Did Newton invent his laws or discover them?

Discovered!

Do the laws of physics exist objectively?

From the perspective of an observer—in this case, God, who generated them—they absolutely exist objectively.

Are those laws essentially mathematical, or could they be expressed non-mathematically?

Those laws are mathematically expressible, sure, but they could definitely be articulated in other ways...

Could Newton's law of gravity be expressed non-mathematically?

Neither Newton's nor Einsteinian gravity is actually correct, because we just can't pin them down precisely, whether that's due to a lack of measurability or a failure to replicate results... Any law that can't be put into plain words isn't truly right. If they ever managed to prove quantum gravity and how it actually works at CERN, then maybe we'd have our first legitimate attempt at a definition, though I highly doubt the folks over at CERN will pull that one off...

Arthur Anderson49 said:I’m totally convinced they could! Honestly, we could describe them in ways that wouldn't even look mathematical to us. You can explain basically anything in nature—even our own logical frameworks—using several different accurate methods. Just look at the classic wave-particle duality debate, for instance.

It's just like describing a hunt: saying a hunter aimed his rifle, pulled the trigger, and took down a rabbit is just as technically accurate as saying some pale wizard pointed a thunderbolt staff at the rabbit and cast a death curse that left the poor thing dead on the spot.

kresho2;15178612 said:

The laws of nature—gravity, specifically—didn't just pop into existence because someone finally noticed them. Humans just observe things and expand our collective understanding. Thousands of years ago, nobody had a formal name for the law of gravity, but that didn't stop apples from falling out of trees all the same. I'll get into how Newton actually arrived at his theory a bit later...

We have a specific way of putting this in American English: we "discover" things. So when you talk about something being "created," what exactly are you getting at... how can something just suddenly come into existence? I mean, something can only be created if it didn't exist before—an actual creation out of nothing, which is just absurd. But if it already exists, then you aren't creating it, you're simply discovering it...

I feel like you might be missing the distinction between a concrete concept—something you can directly perceive, like a "dog"—and a complex abstraction that’s built from other abstractions, such as "the government." The whole point of an abstraction is to describe something rooted in objective reality. Unfortunately, there are certain abstractions out there that don't actually refer to anything real—the concept of God immediately comes to mind—but it's easy for people to trip up and blur those lines, so it's not the end of the world...

This kind of philosophizing isn't just outdated, it's flat-out wrong. Dialectical materialists used this exact brand of logic to justify their positions, and I actually have a specific quote from Lenin that perfectly illustrates why this line of thinking is such a delusion...
Lenin says...
From observing the living world to engaging in abstract thought, and then bridging that gap back to practical application—that’s the dialectical path toward truth, the only way to truly grasp objective reality...

So, if you actually sit down and dig through these arguments, where does that leave you? You’d end up at one single conclusion, and that is that abstraction itself is a total myth... because everything is just matter, and matter is objective—it's our concrete, physical reality. So, what exactly is there left to abstract from? But then, once you take a look at modern quantum mechanics, it turns out that this whole concept of "reality" just evaporates... It doesn't even exist anymore, whether you're using abstraction or not...
You really ought to start by defining what you actually mean by "abstraction," if only to realize how much your logic is tripping over itself... The whole idea of a "concrete abstraction" is more than a little suspicious, to say the least...

It’s really just about how you build up your understanding... You start with the basics, like when your parents first teach you simple words—things like nose, ear, dad, mom, tree, or car. Once you've got those basic abstractions down, you head off to elementary school and start tackling more complex concepts like time or velocity. It’s only after you’ve mastered all that foundational stuff that you can finally wrap your head around something as profound as the law of gravity...

If something exists but isn't made of matter, then we shouldn't just dismiss it as some vague "abstraction." It’s more like a spiritual entity—something that holds its own weight within our consciousness, just as much as a physical object does... Like an apple falling toward the ground, which is material and part of both our inner and outer worlds, yet the non-material stuff is just as real to our experience...

You’re asking whether Newton invented that law or discovered it... But look, there had to be a physical reality first—something like an apple falling from a tree—for Newton to actually observe, which I suppose you'd call "discovering"... then comes the second step, where Newton, or really anyone else, just invents the specific word or formula to label what they just witnessed...

This is a textbook example of someone having absolutely no clue what they’re actually talking about.
When we observe nature, we notice periodic patterns, which can then be generalized and described by a mathematical equation as a single law or constant. But in those observations, we aren't inventing anything; we are exclusively discovering. We can take what we’ve discovered through observation and turn it into a spiritual construct, sure, but we can't create something out of nothing...
The only people on this planet who possess even a tiny spark of creativity are those who, mirroring God, can create works of art or music that simply didn't exist before. That's why creativity is a divine attribute, whereas "abstraction" is really just a desperate attempt to flee from reality.
Abstraction isn't creation—though I know that's clearly the impression everyone gets when they read your posts.

So, laws are essentially part of the information inherent to the universe, which means they had to be planted there by an intelligence existing outside the universe itself. If that intelligence were inside the universe, none of this would be possible... much like how it's impossible to claim that we humans created these laws, because if we made that claim, we'd have to claim we created the entire universe too, which is pure absurdity—or, more accurately, your specific brand of "abstraction."

Do the laws of physics exist objectively?
No, they don't "exist"; they are definitions describing a portion of reality (acting as complex abstractions), whereas reality itself is objective.

Of course they exist as spiritual entities. And that’s just part of cognition, just like an apple is. Actually, it's even more than that, because if you reduce an apple *ad absurdum*, all you're left with is information—the laws that hold its constituent parts, the quanta, together...

What I wanted to point out was the principle behind how we arrive at new concepts, specifically the distinction between concrete abstractions (those relating to direct perception) and complex abstractions (which arise from concrete ones). Basically, I wanted to explain how humans acquire knowledge and how that knowledge connects to (objective) reality. I also wanted to touch upon the futility of asking whether "something" existed before humans invented a word for it (an abstraction).

I’m starting to think he might have been your professor or something... I've honestly never seen anything quite this pathetic. Before you start typing, you really ought to think about the terminology you're using. Your semantics are a mess, and that's why you don't actually know what you're talking about. That’s just the vibe you give off whenever anyone reads your posts...

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

fadedbison17 said: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: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?

fadedbison17 said: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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

Mark Torres14 said:1. Concrete
2. Concrete
3. No
4. Complex

fadedbison17 said: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? 😉

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.]

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!!!

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.]

1.) abstract or concrete.

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