On objective existence and objectivism

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.

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.

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.

James Lee77 said: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.

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...

James Lee77 said: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.

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.

James Lee77 said: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.

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

James Lee77 said: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.

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?

swiftcobra15 said:It is only within a completed system of knowledge that we could
even attempt such an absurd claim as "man is part of the world."
However, every single system is built upon unprovable assumptions,
making it vulnerable to criticism at that level and preventing it from being universally true.

It’s only once we reach some kind of completed system of knowledge where we can
actually make an absurd claim like "man is part of the world."
But honestly, every single system is built on unprovable assumptions
which makes it open to criticism at that level... so it can't really be considered universal truth.
Most of what you're saying just goes over my head, so I'm gonna pass on this debate.
No offense 😉

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. 🙂

James Lee77 said:You said the exact same thing in this post:

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

Nah, I'm not kidding. You're just cherry-picking quotes again... I was being super clear—my response was addressing two different parts of your post.
I don't get why it's so hard to just read your own post (the quote) and then look at my reply to it? Maybe you just like playing word games? Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, I'm really not feeling it...

Anyway, you seem like a decent enough guy. This whole debate was actually pretty fun, at least for me. I've shared what I wanted to share, so I'm gonna head out now...

It was good talking to you 😉

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.

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.

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.

James Lee77 said: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.

🙏 🙏 🙏

This really brings to mind a beautiful sentiment that went something along these lines:

"the universe is simultaneously inconceivable"

And based on that idea, the author draws two pretty clever conclusions:

The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.

and...

Thinking is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
Robert Anton Wilson

James Lee77 said: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.

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.

James Lee77 said: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.

Beautifully put, and honestly, spot on. 👍Personally, I feel it like a total defeat for the human mind. No matter how pointless or impossible it is, our brains are wired to try and nail down a final, complete description of reality. We just don't know how to quit. Our minds refuse to accept limits.

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. 🤷

James Lee77 said: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. 🤷

If that’s the case, how can you argue that "truth" is a thing we just happen to be unable to grasp? It feels like a bit of a logical knot to me—if you claim truth is unreachable, then you're essentially saying it doesn't exist at all, which contradicts your own premise.🤷

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.

James Lee77 said: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:

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.

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.

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. 🤷