Objective truth and certainty
@Congau and I have been discussing the notion of objective truth at length, tangential to another thread topic here. I saw an opportunity to open a separate discussion for others to participate with a broader question:
Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true, is ‘objective truth’:
- what we (as agents) have confidence to act on,
- what we (as logical beings) can state with confidence (ie. propositional logic), or
- what we (as experiential beings) can understand or relate to with confidence (despite it giving us less confidence to act)?
Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true, is ‘objective truth’:
- what we (as agents) have confidence to act on,
- what we (as logical beings) can state with confidence (ie. propositional logic), or
- what we (as experiential beings) can understand or relate to with confidence (despite it giving us less confidence to act)?
Comments (170)
First you would have to add a condition, if there is such a thing as objective truth, then...are these alternatives the only ones, and whether or not they are, is one or more of them a correct definition?
I'd just like to add that the idea that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true is an assertion of absolute truth. Now I have been chastized for raising such and issue, but I think it is less picky and more important than it might seem to some people. The conclusion that one can never be certain is likely based on epistemological concerns, perhaps bringing in things like beliefs about perception, the limits of empirical knowledge, the potential for fallibility in premises in deduction and so on. IOW the conclusion is a belief based on a lot of supporting beliefs and we also need to be certain about all of them. So it takes a number of certain beliefs to draw the conclusion that we can't be certain.
I think it's a very good heuristic, in many situations, perhaps most. But I think it's a problematic conclusion since it is itself a counterexample that is based on further counterexamples.r[/quote]Quoting PossibilityConfidence and certainty are attitudes. They don't really give us any epistemological information. People state all sorts of things with confidence and most think they are logical.Quoting PossibilityIbid.
Exactly, which precludes objectivity. I’m not after a definition as such - which assumes only one definition is the ‘correct’ one - just a discussion that relates to it from alternative perspectives, with a view to a more accurate understanding.
So my view is obviously the third option: our most accurate understanding is to relate (from our limited perspective) to the possibility of objective truth as inclusive of information beyond our own capacity to make use of it, epistemologically or otherwise.
If we frame the idea of 'absolute truth' or whatever in the context of something - say, a game - I think it becomes a little easier. The problem with this discussions is that we don't really particularize them and as a result everyone gets confused and it turns into a mess. If you were to actually particularize it and ask about, say, absolute truth or objectivity in the context of game strategy the discussion becomes a little more honed and insightful.
Ah. The first problem is, some people say there is no such thing as objective truth. Your presentation resembles the proverbial lawyer question 'have you stopped beating your wife"' lol. Not intended to say you are wrong, just that it precludes the issue of whether there is objective truth in the first place.
Quoting Coben
Again, I agree - our uncertainty is based on information we may have beyond the information that determines our actions, which draws our attention to a possibility that the information we act on may be false.
Quoting Coben
It’s a temporarily satisfying heuristic, at least. We learn the truth about who we are at any point in our interaction with the world, but if we take this to be ‘objective truth’ then we go into each interaction experientially ‘blind’ and susceptible to prediction error.
Quoting Coben
Fair enough, but ‘attitude’ refers to a relative position which limits our perception of epistemological potential. So in relation to objectivity, confidence and certainty are more influential than you might think. This is where potential information comes into play.
The majority of epistemological information we have is potential information - that is, its structural relation to reality is incomplete, probabilistic or fuzzy at best - and that’s just the quantitative information. Some information is structured according to an interoception of affect in relation to epistemological experience (pleasantly arousing feelings associated with experiences of ‘knowing’ or stating knowledge).
My understanding of logic is that it constructs an ‘attitude’ towards truth that excludes any structural relations according to affect, and then proceeds to reduce all other potential information to a binary value that assumes maximum certainty. Any logically valid assertion would be ‘true’ despite any information regarding how anyone might feel, but also despite any information beyond a human capacity for sufficient certainty. That’s a lot of information that we’ve discarded from a supposedly ‘objective’’ view of truth.
‘Objective truth’ exists as a possibility. That’s as much as I can assert with any confidence. My point is that we ignore, isolate and exclude what is possible and what has potential from alternative conceptualisations of ‘objective truth’, which calls the objectivity of this ‘truth’ into question.
Thank you for your comments. TBH I’m not looking for a justification, because I don’t believe objective truth can be justified or defined as such. That’s the point. Looking to mathematics is as limiting as looking to propositional logic or game theory for the reality of objective truth. Yes, it is easier to reduce the information to a particular context or position, and it’s certainly useful in structuring quantitative potential information, but that’s not objective. When we relate whatever insight we receive from the discussion back to ‘objective truth’, that insight must be acknowledged as a relative and therefore limited perspective of possibility.
If we’re not honestly conveying the truth of our uncertainty or source of confidence in information as part of the process, enabling us to take into account potential and possible information as such, then I think we’ve lost sight of the most accurate perspective we can present in relation to truth. If we take all of this uncertainty and feeling into account when we relate our position with that of someone else, I think we have the opportunity to construct a more complete relational structure of potential and possible information, and from that a more accurate understanding of where we stand in relation to ‘objective truth’.
I don't really understand what you are trying to do here. You give us three choices for 'objective truth', but there is no generally accepted meaning of these words, and you don't supply any apart from those three formulations. So are we to take these formulations as candidate definitions? But what would motivate our choice? Why are you looking for a definition? There is no value in defining words per se.
Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but if I let my brain's pattern recognition take over for a bit here, there seem to be (at least) three ways people use the way "objective truth":
One is when people want to refer to objective facts, that is, states of affairs in the physical world. Usually, something is considered an objective fact when it's immediately apparent to every observer (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west) or has been corroborated by a sufficient number of trustworthy observers, ideally using the scientific method.
A second one is when people want to refer to something that is really well justified by reason. For example, it might be the case that certain strategies in chess are considered "objectively better" than others based on a thorough analysis of their likelihood to win games. The criterion here is simply that you can follow the reasoning an agree with it.
Lastly, on a philosophy forum, people might be talking about "metaphysically" objective truths. That is, things that are not just thoroughly justified by reason (though they need to be) but actually provide information about what things are like behind the veil of human perception. I think Descartes "cogito, ergo sum" would fall under this category, though it's no longer considered thoroughly justified.
The common element seems to be the direct opposition to subjectivity. So "objective truth" is supposed to denote something that is beyond an individual's ability to disagree with it.
I love these contradictions.
If its a "given", isnt it true? And if it applies to "we", and not just "you", isnt it objective?
So basically you're saying that it is objectively true that we can never be absolutely certain that what is true, is objective truth.
Thank you for your comments. I’ve found that many people don’t make an accurate distinction between potential and possible, though - and may/might doesn’t really help to clarify. There is a tendency to perceive potential information as quantitative (probabilistic) only, and dismiss qualitative information as too uncertain (irreducible) to be useful. A general misunderstanding of the relation between action, affect and emotion also prevents us from accurately structuring qualitative potential information we have in relation to objective truth.
But all of that is nothing compared to the possible information we ignore in our search for objectivity - imaginative, fictional, impractical, improbable, fanciful and just plain ‘false’ information contributes as much to our human capacity to understand objective truth as facts and figures. When someone’s perspective differs from our own so much that we are certain their knowledge, thought, feeling, memory or belief is ‘wrong’, we cannot claim a more objective position until we can understand not only how their perspective is possible, but how they perceive its potential when we don’t.
Well, I’m not looking for a definition. I agree that there is no generally accepted meaning of these words. The formulations are meant to challenge three commonly held notions of ‘objective truth’. You can take them as candidate definitions if that’s what you’re after, but all I’m after is a discussion on the difficulties and contradictions they present.
There is no value in defining words, no - but I think there is a more accurate understanding to be found in discussing alternate and conflicting perspectives of a concept in relation to meaning.
Objective truth has nothing to do with our thinking and even less to do with our action. If you insist on connecting truth to our subjective attitude, why do you call it objective at all?
Logic doesn’t bring certainty to anything existing. It just states the consequences if something is accepted as existing.
Only one truth value can exist for every proposition. There is a matchbox on the table in front of you and you know that either there is at least one match inside it or there is not. “There is a match in the matchbox” has the objective truth value T (1) or F (0). Let’s say you have no clue what if anything is in the box. Let’s say it’s impossible ever to open and check. Let’s say it would dissolve the moment anyone tried and no scientist could ever by any means, x-rays or whatever, get any idea what was in the box. That has no influence on the truth value.
Are you confusing the meaning of the word “value” here? A mathematical value is just a number, it doesn’t mean that it is actually valuable for anyone. No one may care the least to know the truth about some insignificant detail in the universe, but it still has a truth value.
That's because, if you are concerned with objective reality, the principal problem you have is to define intentional causality objectively. Compared to that, every other issue is basically trite. A good summary of an empirical perspective of that problem is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
I doubt that we can even talk about commonly held notions here. Most people have rather hazy notions of objectivity and of truth, and 'objective truth' is doubly hazy. But most of all, I just don't see what would motivate such a discussion. So far it seems to be meandering in the haze, just as one would expect.
Seems to me that "objective truth" is only hazy on a philosophy forum. Objectivity and truth are often used interchangeably. You are asserting truth (asserting truth doesn't mean that what you are asserting is actually true - only that you intend for it to be interpreted as a given and the basis for your other forthcoming ideas that are intended to be a given as well because disagreeing would mean that you are wrong and I am right) any time you make a statement that you intend to be about the shared world. Being that some statement is about the shared world means that it is objective - that we all are shaped by and beholden to, the same truth, even if we don't believe it (delusions)).
Certainty is a feeling that a proposed fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. The feeling is a sort of satisfaction that any more effort to verify correspondence would not lead to a change in status of the fact that it does, or does not, correspond
Probability is much more well established in mathematics, which in turn can be put to use in the sciences but only with an error of margin ever present.
Potential refers to known possibilities and probable refers to known potential outcomes. But there could very well be unknown potential outcomes (which is clearly the case in reality as we’re unable to take into account every little variable).
1+1=2 is objectively true in basic arithmetic. In abstraction universals are used that can be mapped onto reality and allow us to make extremely accurate predictions in some situations and much less accurate predictions in other situations - it depend on how many variables there are , and how accurately they are accounted for.
The rest is purely a linguistic issue. Given that in day-to-day life we’re not inclined to use the terms ‘truth’ and ‘objective’ in anything other than gist manner it is no wonder that when we dog further there are clear misinterpretations and miscommunications.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree that these describe three common ways that people conceptualise ‘objective truth’. The assumption they have in common is that objectivity must be in direct opposition to subjectivity: that is, it must be justifiable from any human perspective, despite what we may want to believe. But the problem is that each of these descriptions are relative to subjectivity.
The first description is relative to the position of an observer in time and space. No one’s going to argue with us right now about the sun rising in the east and setting in the west (unless they fail to understand what we mean by those words), but we also understand that this is neither a universally nor an eternally positioned observation in reality.
The second one takes into account potential information, but effectively ignores qualitative differences in perspective, and perceives only probabilistic or quantitative potential information, reducible to the most likely or most useful value. No one’s going to dispute sound reasoning, but we also understand that we can’t make predictions about the truth of human behaviour, for instance, based on reasoning alone. We can make reasoned judgements about what should happen, but that’s not objectively true, because people often don’t do what is reasonable.
The third one I find interesting. The only example you’ve given is no longer justified by reason, which already suggests subjectivity. Descartes’ attempt to discard all uncertainty runs counter to what we now understand of quantum mechanics, but it has been useful in demonstrating the limitations of human experience in relation to objectivity.
According to recent neuroscience, the brain doesn’t interact directly with the environment in a stimulus-response format, but rather makes predictions based on an interoceptive network of potential information as affect: reduced to the energy (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements and capacity of the organism. It’s basically the same for most animals, but in the case of humans, this potential information is differentiated into a much more complex conceptual system that enables us to make, test, evaluate and adjust these budgeting predictions continually before and during action.
What this all suggests (in my view) is that maximising the relative diversity of subjective information obtains a more accurate understanding of objective truth. Rather than simply reducing our capacity to disagree, we can maximise our capacity to agree on principle by striving to relate to different perspectives.
‘Given’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true - this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which I am asking the question. I’ve stated it because I don’t automatically assume this to be objectively true. If you disagree with this limitation, feel free to make your case.
If I had said ‘no one can ever be absolutely certain’, that would imply objectivity. By ‘we’, I’m referring to those of us involved in the discussion; you (collectively) and I. Again, if you disagree with the perspective as given, then make your case.
‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute. I’m inviting people to explore the relevant issues from a position of uncertainty.
Objectively, objective truth is that which is true regardless of what we perceive the truth to be, want it to be or believe it to be.
Then it's true that this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which you are asking the question, and that is the case whether I agree or not from my perspective (objective)? In talking about the nature of your perspective, are you speaking the truth, and is how you explain your perspective how it actually is even though I might disagree? Would I be wrong in disagreeing? What would that mean - to be wrong, or right about the nature of your perspective?
Quoting Possibility
So you're saying that the nature of reality within this discussion is different than outside of this discussion?
Quoting Possibility
Is it true that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute? It seems to me that what is in dispute is that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute.
You can insist on the existence of an objective truth value, but its existence is only ever a possibility, just like the existence of ‘God’. Any statement you make regarding the existence or properties of this ‘objective truth value’ is both true and false, or neither, because there is no way of distinguishing its value objectively.
Quoting Congau
Are you sure about that? If a mathematical value was not valuable for anyone, would it even exist as a concept?
Uncertainty or ‘fuzziness’ is what motivates the discussion. Interactions between different perspectives of this uncertainty may help to bring relational structure to the fuzziness, in my opinion.
But that's just not right.
Or better, the word "absolutely" sits there making a perfectly normal sentence into a bit of metaphysical nonsense.
"We never know what is true" is obviously wrong, since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it.
And further it is true that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you; and further, that we are certain of these things. Doubt here is senseless.
And there is that word "objective", propped up again against "truth" as if it made a difference. If you are not sure what it is, then don't use it.
This is an interesting perspective. As a parent, I learned that permission (and indeed power) is based on perceived potential. So long as the child is unaware of their potential to have an ice cream without permission, then the child’s perceived potential can be limited by the parent. Once that potential is perceived as not limited by parental permission, it becomes about perceived consequences and affect. As a parent, it’s tempting to relate these consequences and/or affect back to ourselves, extending the perception of our ‘power’ over the child. So long as one remains ignorant (or fearful) of their own potential, ‘power’ is perceived as external.
I think that a more objective understanding of causality is found in relating the different subjective perspectives of potential information, or value relations. Schopenhauer’s four subjective correlates are all examples of this perceived potential: understanding, reason, sensibility and inner sense. These are anthropocentric terms, but in my view this ‘inner causality’ can be understood more objectively (with caution) in relation to ‘the will’, as an interaction of limited ‘perspectives’ of potential or value. As usual with discussions around objectivity, though, language and meaning are a minefield.
Thank you for this. I think that acknowledging the limitations of each perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth is important. Whether we’re talking logic, science, probability, potential or abstraction, we’re assuming a limited perspective of the possibility of objective truth, like the blind men around the elephant - except our ‘position’ is related not so much to spatial structures and sensory information, but to structures of value/significance (language, affect, epistemology, etc) and meaningful information.
When we ‘map’ one of these perspectives onto a prediction of reality, it is the prediction errors that point to the inaccuracy and limitations of that perspective, not of reality. This is meaningful information in discussions such as these, that focus on piecing together the ‘elephant’. But if we assume objectivity in the perspective and ignore the resulting prediction error - ie. that our ‘map’ doesn’t quite fit all perspectives - we miss an opportunity to develop a more accurate perspective in relation to the possibility of objective reality.
Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true? If you tell me you disagree, then perhaps we can discuss our difference in perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth. My perspective as I describe it is only how I describe it - I expect your perspective of my perspective to be quite different, but I can only ask you as to how different and in what ways. In relation to the possibility of objective truth, I would say that you disagreeing would be neither wrong nor right, but simply expressing a difference in perspective of the nature of my perspective.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That’s not how I see it, no. I’m saying that my perspective of the perspective of those outside this discussion cannot be sufficiently determined from the discussion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Possibly not - that was my perspective, given the discussion that led to this OP. I would agree with your statement of what may be in dispute between you and I, though. The question I have is: what is your perspective of the possibility of ‘objective truth’ as a concept? Because I’m not disputing the obvious limitations of my perspective. But relating to your perspective might improve the accuracy of mine, at least.
Ha ha - I was waiting for you to show up. What is meant by ‘objective truth’ is the topic of discussion. I don’t think anyone can define ‘objective truth’ - but that doesn’t preclude a discussion. I presented options, all of which are problematic. Personally, I’d go with the third option, but all three are useful in their own way.
I'm taking your question to be tongue-in-cheek.
Objective truth should be contrasted with subjective truth. Objective truths are quite mind-independent. For example, the Earth has one moon reflects a state-of-affairs that exists apart from any mind. In other words, one could eliminate all minds, and the fact would still obtain. There might not be anyone around to apprehend the objective truth, but the fact would still exist.
Subjective truths, on the other hand, are mind-dependent. For example, "Tim likes apples," is dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity, i.e., it is either the case that Tim does or does not like apples. The truth of the statement, for Tim, is subjective, dependent on the subject, his taste, likes or dislikes, etc. Eliminate all minds and you eliminate all subjective truths.
I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always.
I agree that the statement “We never know what is true” is logically false, given a mutual understanding that claims to ‘knowledge’ are claims to ‘truth’.
I also agree that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you, and that you and I are certain of these things within the context of your subjective experience in relation to mine. Doubt here is unnecessary.
But what you state is ‘true’ is not always going to be identical to what I understand to be ‘true’, and even if we agree, it may not be with the same degree of certainty.
I love your statement: “If you are not sure what it is, then don’t use it.” The idea that we can or should only interact with complete confidence is part of what I am disputing here.
Neuroscience shows that the brain can only ever act with a relative degree of certainty, based on continually predictive evaluations of energy and attention requirements and capacity - affect - a correlation of quantitative and qualitative potential information. Our entire conceptualisation of reality is constructed from experiences of prediction error and resulting adjustments to this interoceptive map of perceived potentiality/value.
So it is in using it that we develop confidence in what it is. Prediction error enables the organism to construct a more accurate interoceptive map of reality.
I agree. I guess my point here is that, while the possibility of an agreeable definition eludes us, we can nevertheless improve the accuracy of our own limited perspective of what is ‘true’ and what is ‘objective’ by orienting our own perspective in relation to those who disagree.
As far as preliminary navigation, I have been discussing the notion of ‘objective truth’ for some time now with Congau, which began with a discussion on the value of relating different perspectives. Congau has been arguing for an ‘objective or real truth value’ (different to the truth value we attribute to propositions within the limited perspective of propositional logic), a concept I have stubbornly refused to acknowledge as anything more than a possibility. This prompted the question I set up in the OP.
Eliminate all minds and you eliminate awareness of ‘facts’ as answers to specific questions, as well as all questions, and therefore all facts. Something would still exist, though - but who would know?
The fact that “the Earth has one moon” is dependent on perception of concepts such as ‘earth’ and ‘moon’ and a possessive relation between the two. Without a mind, facts cannot obtain. You could argue that existence obtains independent of ‘mind’, but how would ‘mindless’ existence differentiate one existence from another, let alone differentiate a possessive relation?
SO we sometimes disagree as to the facts. Sure do.
That's a very different observation to the stuff set out in the OP. Much less of the dramatic metaphysical speculation. Is that all this thread is about?
Here's what I said: Quoting Banno
I'm suggesting that "objective" just serves to confuse the issue with which you wish to grapple. Certainly the thread could take on board Sam's suggestion that it be considered as contrasted with "subjective", but doing so serves to blunt the questions you have posed.
Tim's own statement that fruit X tastes better than fruit y is subjective. Here Tim is universalizing his taste and potentially making it objective also.
But it seems to me if we, as minds not Tim's, make statements about Tim, even if they involve what for him include subjective experiences, we are or at least can be objective. Saying that the statement no longer works if we get rid of Tim, causes problems for all sorts of objective statements also, if we get rid of the objects of those statements.
Not just disagree as to the facts - we also disagree as to how to act, what should be done, what is real, what exists, what anything means, what is true, etc.
These aren’t facts, they’re perspectives of a relational structure to reality that exists beyond what is obvious to everyone or proven by scientific method. You can call it what you want, but we USE this ‘metaphysical speculation’ continually to make, test and adjust predictions about our interactions with the world.
Quoting Banno
I disagree that ‘objective’ contrasts with ‘subjective’ in relation to truth. By my understanding, the possibility of a truth that is ‘objective’ must correlate all possible perspectives of ‘truth’, including those we may not believe are ‘subjective’, such as logic and mathematics. This may seem impossible to achieve, but ‘objective truth’ can still serve as a conceptual reference from which each perspective is understood to fall short in some respect - including yours.
I'm never convinced by this way of using the terms "subjective" and "objective".
"Tim likes apples" is not objectively true? Isn't it a fact that Tim likes apples? Are you saying there are subjective facts?
And if "Tim likes apples" is subjectively true because it's "dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity", then "Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher" is also subjectively true, because it's similarly dependent on Slavoj Zizek.
I imagine you might go on to say that subjective truths are only about a person's "taste, likes or dislikes, etc", as if those were something private and inaccessible. But those things are expressed in a person's behaviour: Tim's taste for apples can be seen in his excessive consumption of apples, and Zizek's taste for thinking about Hegel is expressed in the fact that he's a philosopher who writes about Hegel.
I don't see the utility of saying that a truth is in a special class of truths if the subject of the statement happens to have a mind.
In my view, the terms "subjective" and "objective" make better sense as: from only one point of view and not from only one point of view. Under this scheme, though, we can't really talk about subjective and objective truths at all, unless we want to follow the popular mode of "it's my truth", or, "Tim's truth is that apples are delicious".
Yes, I can see that. The point being that you are taking the term and using it in a new way...
Quoting Possibility
Whoa.
That's easy, then.
SO here's a game were we take "objective", divorce it from its everyday use and give it an impossible job.
Do we then conclude that we can never have objective truth?
That ought to work.
Then we can perform a reconciliation between objective and subjective, and conclude that all truths are subjective.
“Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.” - Wikipedia
The philosophical understanding I’m coming from is that of Thomas Nagel’s exploration of ‘a view from nowhere’. But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics.
Quoting Banno
Who drew that conclusion?
Yep, Wiki agrees with Sam, then adds a bit of ambiguity.
Nagel rather misfired, it seems to me. Rather than "a view from nowhere" I'd phrase it as "a view from anywhere", as opposed to "my view".
Quoting PossibilityWhat's all that?
Quoting PossibilityWatch - it'll come.
The way I see it, you can take the Wiki explanation one of two ways.
You could take Sam’s path of reductionism: ignore, isolate and exclude most of the limited information you have to find a lowest common denominator. This is similar to Descartes’ mistake, discarding all uncertainty and doubt from an already limited perspective. Don’t get me wrong - I think there’s plenty of use for reductionism. It is, after all, what enables us to act in the world. But I also think this reduction will always be flawed if it simply eliminates subjective truths as irrelevant, rather than seeks to explain their existence within what is ‘objective’. You can’t simply reduce reality to one without sentient subjects, for instance, and assume that ‘facts’ will obtain in their absence.
Objectively speaking, ‘facts’ are dimensionally located answers to dimensionally located questions. For a fact to exist, a question needs to be asked. This relates to quantum theory, in which it is the question that ultimately determines the answer. For ‘the Earth has one moon’ to exist as an actual ‘fact’ is dependent on a question asked from a relative position. This ‘observer’ position is fuzzy (uncertain) but limited: it is provable that the Earth has not always had a moon and has not always been what we understand to be the Earth - the two have not always existed in this relationship (can the moon have an Earth instead?). The ‘objective truth’ to which this fact refers is not contained by the statement, or inherent within the words. The fact is a reduction of potential information, a collapse of potentiality: so long as the potentiality of the question and the potentiality of the answer interact, then the fact exists in relation to the possibility of ‘objective truth’.
This seems contrived (and I may not have explained it very well), but it’s meant to illustrate the relevance of potentiality and possibility in a reductionist approach to ‘objective truth’. The point is that you’re not going to get away from uncertainty by hiding behind facts.
The other way to take this explanation is to employ ‘metaphysical speculation’: to maximise the diversity of information from individual subjects, including perception, emotion and imagination, and propose a possible relational structure that might exist independently of any individual subjectivity, while also explaining (not just accepting) all possible individual subjectivity. It’s something I think humans are uniquely equipped to develop and refine by using language to interact - not just at the level of qualitative and quantitative potentiality, but also at the level of imagination, meaningful interaction and other possible relations beyond any particular sense of value. The point is not just to make something up, but to do what we do best: to ask questions, gather information, hypothesise, make predictions, test, make mistakes, adjust and test and adjust some more...
I know, it sounds pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell, I’ve got nothing better to do...
OK, we might leave it there. Because I've got no idea what this is.
No, it is not objectively true, it is subjectively true, it is dependent on the subject (the person). Yes, I am saying there are subjective facts.
Quoting jamalrob
Yes, that's true. However, I'm not saying the lines at times don't get blurred between these concepts. Many concepts are like this. However, when I say subjective, I'm referring to those things that are mind-dependent. For example, the apple that Tim likes is objective (mind-independent), but his likes and dislikes are mind-dependent.
Quoting jamalrob
No, the fact that they are subjective doesn't mean they are private and inaccessible. We can observe Tim's likes and dislikes based on what he does. He interacts with the objective apple, but this interaction reveals something about his personal tastes. There is a component of objectivity and a component of subjectivity to his actions.
For me it is clear that there are subjective truths and objective truths. There are contingent truths and necessary truths. I have no problem dividing these up.
Right. There is no way we can distinguish truth value objectively, there is no way we can think anything objectively or do anything whatsoever objectively. We are all subjects. Objective truth has nothing to do with what we think; it is out there independent of us. Every conceivable statement about existence has a truth value which we cannot know or distinguish. A statement about the existence of God has an objective truth value. It is either objectively true or objectively false. We don’t know which; we only know that it can’t be both and it can’t be neither since that would be logically impossible. Nothing can both exist and not exist. “A = not A” is logically impossible.
“X exists” has no truth value, because x as it stands is not referring to anything but put anything in the place of x and the statement receives an objective truth value. Whether x is God or my computer or a unicorn the existence of it is an objectively definite true or false. “Objective” doesn’t mean “can be known”, it doesn’t refer to knowledge at all since knowledge is only something in the mind and minds are subjective.
The existence of something is a mere possibility for us, but in reality (unknown to us) it absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
You seem to be contradicting yourself. In speaking with me, you say that we can't know the truth - you can't even assert that what you said is true, yet with Banno, you acknowledge that we can know what it is true, and that what Banno says is fact. :lol:
Quoting Possibility
So in using something you are able to declare what is true? In using, are you not attempting to falsify the information you have about the object you are using? Are we not performing a falsification of the scientific theories that the technology is based on when using our smartphones? When the smartphone doesn't work when using it a certain way, is that a limitation of the smartphone, or a limitation of you knowledge of how the smartphone works and is supposed to be used?
I gave my explanation in my reply to SophistiCat on the first page.
Quoting Harry Hindu
In a sense 'objective truth' is a redundant statement. It's equivalent to saying 'true truth'.
There are no such things as 'subjective truth'. This is equivalent to saying 'false truth'.
Quoting jamalrob
Exactly. Subjective truths/facts are category errors. A subjective fact would be that the 'the apple is good'. 'Good' has nothing to do with the apple. It has to do with a mental state. Subjective truths are projected mental states, where objective truths are obtained mental states - obtained by the senses, not projected by the mind.
Not the way I see it. First of all, I personally try not to declare ‘truth’, because I understand that what might I think or say is true can only be a limited perspective of what is true.
Secondly, given that both ‘know’ and ‘true’ are understood as subjective claims, the proposition that Banno suggested is logically false as stated. What we claim to know we also claim to be true, so to claim that we never ‘know’ what is true doesn’t make sense. But I don’t think it’s the same as suggesting that our capacity for certainty in relation to what is true is always limited, despite what we claim to ‘know’.
Lastly, Banno has a way of confidently asserting his perspective so that it appears indisputable. Given that my own approach has always been to eschew certainty, I was looking forward to his contribution to the discussion. I wasn’t disappointed.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Interesting perspective. There’s a difference in my view between developing confidence in our understanding of a concept, and declaring what is true.
In using a smartphone, we develop confidence in what we can and can’t do with it: its perceived potential and value in relation to our own. In relating to how others use that smartphone, however, we recognise the differences in what they can and can’t do with it as indicative of what we both have yet to understand about the smartphone’s potential and value in relation to our own, as well as what it means to others.
I don't get this at all. So we're not suppose to believe anything you say?
I agree with you that maybe we can know what is true, but when you say "since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it", that's a false logic
Do you know how many things we thought we know, but turned to be wrong?
And so...those are things we thought we knew. It turned out that we were wrong; that is, althogh we thoght we knew them, we didn't actually know them.
Think about it again.
Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, I understand now.
But then how can you be sure that we really know the things which we think we know?
Ex: take any scientific theory we have now if we found evidence against that theory, and we proved it to be wrong, does that mean we now know the truth?
If anything in my writing is unclear I apologize.
So... Banno is assertive, hence what he says is false. But Possibility is not assertive, so what he says is true.
:broken:
Why not put it in a simple way.
preferably, give me an example of scientific truths.
It's an objective truth.
It's true regardless of where you are, or of what you see.
It's the view from anywhere.
Whatever happens in the distant future?
Why add "absolutely"?
That's the problem with philosophy, as Wittgenstein pointed out. It takes something nice and straightforward and confuses it with extra words.
What does "absolutely" do here?
You're right.
I just wanted to say, that there is many things we said: We know X is true.
But as time goes someone disproves it, like how Einstein disproved Newton Ideas about absolute time.
Do you see what I mean?
Their argument goes something along the lines of... anything we say we know might be wrong; therefore we don't know anything...
Now when you say it like that, it's artless and obviously cobblers. So folk like @Possibility hide it in lots of other words like "absolute", "subjective", Quantum"...
The philosophers' job is to point out the bullshit.
I agree.
Maybe I should've mention certainty&uncertainty to specify what I was talking about.
By the way, you're agnostic atheist, right?
I'm a fellow agnostic, but I have a problem with oblivion, can you take a look at a thread I started?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8215/im-afraid-of-losing-life
Well, if knowledge is irrelevant to objective truth, then logical impossibility has no relevance to it either, and true or false is indefinite. But if that’s the case, then what would you say is the relevance of objective truth value? Why even have such a concept, if objective truth has nothing to do with what we think and is completely independent of us, of logic and of definition? What does it matter?
Quoting Congau
Put a noun in the place of x and any statement structured correctly has value. Such is the reduction process of language systems. “X eats y” is a relational structure of potential information, the meaning of which is definable once x and y have value attributed to them from within the value system of the English language. Propositional logic sets further limitations to the relational structure, so that the meaning of the statement is definable only as a binary value referred to as ‘truth’. Within the value system (ideology) of propositional logic, this ‘truth value’ is objectively possible for all existence, but its potential is limited to a language system and a particular set of logical rules.
What I’ve been encouraging you to do is to imagine what is outside the ideology of propositional logic, beyond the limitations in which ‘truth value’ is objectively definite and it is impossible for something to both exist and not exist. Because the possibility that “Peter will break his leg in 2021” still has potential to be explored in relation to objective truth, and can be useful as such, whether or not the statement is definable as ‘true’ from a certain perspective.
This is the challenge I see in relating to ‘objective truth’ - or even just ‘truth’, or ‘reality’ or ‘existence’ or ‘information’ or ‘meaning’, or any concept that has claims to objectivity. This is why I think it is so difficult for us to describe these concepts, let alone define them, and why it matters that we make the effort to relate to them as ‘objective’ anyway. It isn’t to define it or describe it ‘objectively’, because that would be meaningless. It’s to remind us of our fallibility, and the uncertainty of our position - that there is potential and possible information we are ignoring, isolating or excluding that matters from different perspectives, whether or not we can or are willing to understand why or how it matters at the time. And it’s a challenge to manifest ways to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this information, improving the accuracy of our limited interaction with existence.
That’s up to you. I can tell you what I think and explain why I think that way. Whether you believe it or not is not something I’m going to enforce. Does that freedom bother you?
Wow - that’s what you got from what I said?
It is in relating to the difference in your perspective that I can improve the accuracy of my understanding. It isn’t about who speaks true or false statements, as far as I’m concerned. It is your assertiveness that stimulates the discussion. Otherwise I might as well be talking to myself.
...in this temporal position, and from the position of those who understand the significance of ‘night’, ‘day’, ‘caused by’, ‘earth’, ‘rotating’, etc. within a relational structure of language.
It refers to the possibility of objective truth from a relative position, which you assume is common to everyone. That’s fine, as long as you don’t assume that it IS identical to objective truth, as in eternally, absolutely, unquestionably ‘I-could-not-possibly-be-wrong-about-this-ever’ truth.
This is what Wittgenstein seemed to be on about: the difference in meaning of ‘I know’, as in ‘this is currently the information that I am certain of’ as opposed to ‘I can’t be wrong’. I can relate to the frustration of unnecessary language such as qualifiers when we can be certain of a shared perspective. Reduction of information to ‘the difference that makes a difference’ is important to ensure accuracy in communication as an interactive event.
The difficulty with (speculative) philosophy is that it’s not just about communication, but about striving for accuracy in relation to all possible existence. So when we’re trying to maximise our understanding of an ‘objective’ anything, it shouldn’t just be about what we can communicate succinctly amongst each other, but about all the fuzziness of information we have beyond that, and then trying to piece it all together into something more coherent, and eventually testable.
We can’t keep speculating and getting ‘creative’ with theoretical meanings and value structures ad absurdum - I get that. But it isn’t about reducing information to fit existing structures, either - it’s about adjusting those structures in a way that enables us to integrate more relevant information and improves the accuracy of our interactions.
The creative process is about continually refining a dynamic balance between all possibilities and what we think we can achieve within practical limitations. If you’re open to refining your perspective of the practical limitations, then I’ll try to keep bringing my wild speculations back to what I think we can achieve.
To someone who is trying to improve their understanding of syntax, the English language, propositional logic, etc, this statement is meaningful. To the rest of us, its potential information is either not new or not relevant, hence it appears meaningless from our perspective.
I agree with you here. As in my reply above to Banno, when accuracy in communication is our aim, most of what I’m discussing here is pointless drivel. It is in the context of philosophical attempts to understand existence beyond a perspective that you and I share that we even need to qualify ‘objective truth’ (as opposed to simply ‘objective’ or ‘truth’) at all.
You are going to use Wittgenstein to defend some form of relativism?
This should be good...
And this is what I can manage to imagine my primate, time-unfolding experiencing, in one place mind might be assuming and which might not be true. There might be other things that it is incredibly hard for me or anyone to imagine has skewed what I think is an objective evaluation. The view from anywhere, really needs to be a veiw from an anymind, anyexperiencing consciousness or something. Not just anywhere.
I have thought for years that Nagel meant the view from Nowhere as a pejorative, since we can't have that. It's been decades since I read him. IOW not what we want is a view from nowhere, but more like, there isn't a view from nowhere, but some act like there is. As said, this could be totally off.
Edit:did some checking and it seems like I am wrong. I think I am projecting somethings from the bat essay and assuming stuff. And further while I do agree that we can strive for a view from nowhere or anywhere, we can't do either. At least at this stage of our evolution. Some post singularity mind, who knows? Which is not to say, at all, I think it's all subjective, no point in making an effort toward these views, etc.
I connect this to the other thread on the something form nothing issue, partly to say, hey, I am not addicted to cause/effect models.
Quoting Banno
But why would you even conclude that what you think would be useful to me if we weren't similar in some way in the way we think already, or that we live in a shared world where similar causes lead to similar effects - that what you think is objective rather than subjective?
What you are doing in sharing your idea is attempting to get others to agree with you so that you can use that as a evidence to support your idea being true. In doing this, you are trying to change your subjective view to an objective one.
Sure everyone has the freedom to come up with their own imaginings, without any inhibitions, but that just means that dragons and unicorns really exist in a hidden dimension and Elvis Presley's spirit has been reincarnated in Smitty Cooper of Tropical Paradise Trailer Park are all just as likely (or true) as any idea you come up with here in this thread.
You didn’t have to contribute to this thread. I imagine we share some elements of our perspective, otherwise you wouldn’t have engaged in the discussion. I won’t presume to know precisely how much we share, though.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I disagree. What I’m doing in sharing my idea is inviting others to disagree, so that I can refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view. I don’t think my particular view is objective in itself, but I believe it is potentially more accurate in relation to objectivity. But I don’t think I can really have an objective view - so, no, I don’t intend to claim one by consensus. I’m aiming more for (Hegelian) synthesis. I’m thinking that, between us, there is possibly a more objective view.
Perhaps objectivity is just a conceptual device within which we can relate perspectives of reality with a view to evaluating and refining our own. Anything I say about truth, reality, meaning, information, etc can only be an expression of my subjective view. When I use the qualifier ‘objective’, I’m exploring a possible structure in which I can relate to potential information expressed in your perspective, without necessarily changing how that information is structured in my own. Being able to imagine the differences between value structures in a more ‘objective’ mental construct allows me to compare and contrast conceptual ‘simulations’ and make predictions on possible structures - in relation to logic, memory, knowledge, beliefs, thoughts, sensory input, etc - before determining how to integrate this potential information.
If you are looking for others to disagree with your idea so that you can "refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view.", then why are you disagreeing with me? In disagreeing with me, you are saying that my subjective truth isn't true. So what determines if some subjective truth is true? Is your disagreement enough to determine that my subjective truth isn't true? In your disagreeing, am I now suppose to believe that my subjective truth is false?
Quoting Possibility
This is great example of an objective view of a subjective view. Is what you just said subjectively true, or objectively true? What if we dispense with "objective" and "subjective" because they are really just synonyms for "true" and "false". Is your above claim true or false?
In disagreeing with you, I’m saying that your subjective view of truth is different to my perspective of truth. I’m not telling you what you’re supposed to believe. But if you’re only hearing “you’re wrong and I’m right”, then it seems to me that you don’t believe we are capable of considering the potential of an alternative perspective without sacrificing our own.
Quoting Harry Hindu
An ‘objective view of a subjective view’? Can we clarify the language here a little? This is an example of the reader assuming a claim to objectivity, and the author assuming an expression of a subjective view. If I’m saying that anything I say is an expression of my subjective view - whether you agree with it or not - then why do you assume I’m claiming objectivity with this statement? That doesn’t make sense. What I’ve said is a subjective view of what is true. That’s not synonymous with ‘false’, although it is fallible.
My view is that the concepts I’ve mentioned have an objectivity to them that will always extend beyond my subjective view of them, regardless of how accurate that view becomes. The nature of language is a reduction of information, so as carefully as I may render my expression, like any artwork, at best it will point to the objectivity or reality of that concept from my limited perspective.
You seem to be quite defensive of your perspective, and expecting me to claim the objective position. I’m not going to do that. Your perspective is valid - it can tell me your position in relation to my own - but the way I see it, we’re both describing truth like the blind men and the elephant. We get a more accurate picture when we can relate our perspectives to each other as partial maps of the territory, so to speak, rather than arguing whether our respective views are true or false.
If this is the way that you want to put it, then there are more or less accurate maps of the territory. If your map contradicts mine, then what do we do? Who has an actual map of the territory? If neither of us do, then we don't really have maps then do we?
So, in the end, we agree?
I'm rather fond of "the view from anywhere". It's the change from "I like vanilla" to "Banno likes vanilla". The overall point, of course, is contrary to those who would posit that truth is subjective and hence the banal relativism of Quoting Possibility
Then we explore in what specific ways they contradict. Your view is not in polar opposition to mine, because there are elements that we agree on. It is those things that help to orient our respective positions in a more objective ‘space’. It’s similar to how a computer combines 2D images of an object to construct a 3D view (only there are more aspects to consider).
An actual map of the territory is not what we’re after initially, although it may be our ultimate goal. This is part of what I’m trying to get across (and I’ve carelessly used a spatial example here, which I’m convinced is going to come back and bite me). When we have two maps that contradict, it’s pointless to argue over the maps themselves, because they may both be inaccurate in some way. The best way to solve the contradiction is to orient both maps together in the more objective 3D space (eg. travelling over the terrain), so that errors of perspective can be recognised and corrected. We’ll both still end up with 2D maps, but they’re both now more accurate than either of the two original maps.
So in order to ensure the most accurate 2D map of a 3D space, we need be orienting different 2D perspectives in 3D, and correcting for distortion, before reducing the resulting information back down to a more accurate 2D rendering of the territory. But if one of the cartographers refuses to consider the 3D space as ‘more objective’, then they won’t even attempt to orient both maps in 3D, and will fail to see where the distortions are in their own map in relation to the 3D space. They will insist that one map is true and the other false.
The ‘view from anywhere’ is a claim to the most objective position, often in blatant ignorance of the possibility that one may be missing information. It’s a favourite technique of those who prefer to maintain an over-inflated sense of their own importance, often against all evidence to the contrary: like religious doctrine, scientific writers, journalists ...and Trump.
I’m not having a personal dig at you, Banno. I realise you’ve explained here that when we’re proven wrong, those statements are false, and we adjust our knowledge. But my argument is that logic is not the ‘objective’ position it claims to be. Relating to the logical position enables us to adjust our own position for distortions of affect, so I agree that it’s more objective than anyone’s personal perspective alone. But logic excludes certain ‘illogical’ possibilities that are important considerations when we’re trying to develop an accurate understanding of concepts such as ‘truth’, ‘existence’, ‘meaning’, ‘information’ and ‘reality’ - concepts that have an ‘objective’ aspect to them beyond the constraints of language, knowledge, morality, etc.
One of the main parameters of logic is the law of excluded middle. If we have different perspectives, logic tells us that one must be true and the other necessarily false. But if we cannot find a way to hold both perspectives in our mind as valid, then we’re unable to adjust for distortions of perspective that could improve the accuracy of both positions in relation to truth (see my reply to Harry above).
The ‘view from anywhere’ invites a power struggle - which of course suits those who hold the illusion of power. Galileo’s personal struggle against Church doctrine is an example of the problem with this ‘view from anywhere’. My position is that a little humility on both sides goes a long way.
That' just an ad hom; nothing more. It's poor thinking; an exercise in attempting to deny rationality by pretending it's mere powerplay, as if that were not itself a move in the same powerplay. Basically, its the root of bullshit.
In my opinion Davidson more than deals with your objections using charity and radical interpretation.
Granted. This part was not my argument as such - it was a passing comment, and an ungracious one at that. My humble apologies.
Quoting Banno
Thank you for this. I’d not heard of Davidson before, and I find that I agree with the vast majority of his theory (as described by SEP), particularly with regards to charity and radical interpretation. I will need to track down his original works at some stage. Much appreciated.
Quoting Coben
I agree with this. I think there appears to be an assumption here that my approach is purely relativistic as such. I believe that truth exists objectively - but neither as something actual, nor as something potentially knowable. I stated this lack of certainty as a ‘given’ condition in the OP, which clearly seemed to bother some people. For me, objectivity is a possibility: a concept we can aspire to understand most accurately in relation to those positions with which we disagree, or indeed perspectives which we struggle to understand. At this level of relation, though, we need to let go of certainty as a fundamental attribute to information, otherwise I think we miss the opportunity to learn.
That we can interact with the world for the most part without encountering challenges to the certainty in our perspective is insufficient reason to claim objectivity in a philosophical sense. This reasoning can lead to intellectual stagnation - a focus on preserving a claim to objectivity by prioritising certainty at the expense of possibilities, or even potential. Acknowledging that, as you say, much of what we conclude or claim to ‘know’ is based on uncertain information seems, to me, a first step in approaching a discussion about the notion of ‘objective truth’.
A lot of our disagreement, as is often the case in philosophical debate, is actually about linguistics and how to define terms.
Of course I agree that we use input from the world to draw conclusions about it and make conjectures about what the future might look like. This perpetual human interaction creates individual and collective understanding and does constitute a reality of its own. Cultural and intersubjective beliefs are existing entities (and as such objective in my understanding of the term) but I don’t understand why you insist on calling such ideas objective. When the dictionary clearly states that “objective” means “not dependent on the mind” why is it necessary to push that dictionary definition? Couldn’t you get your point across by using other words? In the beginning of our discussion I was pleased to learn that you acknowledged the existence of objective truth, but then I realized that your understanding of “objective” was different from mine. Isn’t a debate about mere words really an unnecessary confusion (although a very common one)?
Any object can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, which would make an infinite number of objective truths and that is rather a characteristic of what is subjective. Why not call it subjective then?
What do you mean by ‘a reality of its own’? Are you maintaining a dual sense of reality, as in mental vs physical? You agree that beliefs are objectively real and yet don’t understand why I include them in an objective sense of reality. I recognise that each of these beliefs are subjective, but together they contribute to a conceptual structure of truth that is in itself more objective than what is merely actual.
Quoting Congau
A photograph of an object is subjective, because it displays only one limited view out of many, and offers no reason to suggest that another perspective is possible (even though we ‘know’ that many exist). A visual model of the object is more objective than the photograph, because it is inclusive of all visual perspectives. But it is also subjective in relation to a working replica of the object, which would be inclusive of information regarding an internal aspect: how the object is constructed and what it does in a temporal sense. This seems to be as far as your sense of objectivity stretches.
But if that object is a human being, then we understand that any ‘working replica’ of the object would still fall short of reality. This suggests that there is at least another aspect to the human experience, of which a p-zombie (as a full ‘working replica’ of a human being, inclusive of your sense of ‘objective’ understanding) gives no indication, like the photograph or the model. This renders the p-zombie a subjective view of humanity in relation to reality. A more objective understanding of the truth of human experience would then need to be inclusive of all experiential perspectives, such as cultural and intersubjective beliefs, conclusions and conjectures, about what the future might look like, etc.
I guess I’m not one to work only within the actual constraints of a dictionary definition simply because it’s written down as such. Definition is a reduction of knowledge, which is a reduction of meaning, after all.
No, that’s not what I mean. I’m just saying that a thought is one addition to reality. Reality consists of stones, houses, nail polish, thoughts etc.
“I am now thinking about x.” That immediately adds one item to reality, this thought of mine, but it does nothing to x.
“I’m thinking about an elephant.” The elephant is not affected.
“I’m thinking about a unicorn.” The unicorn didn’t come into existence, even though my thought did.
Quoting Possibility
A photograph is objective. It makes a copy of exactly how the object looks from a particular angle (including the degree of light/darkness and haze). It doesn’t make any interpretations, what it “sees” is what a human would have seen if we had been able to leave our biased impressions aside.
A photograph (or a human replica) makes no claim to be saying anything about the human experience. An objective understanding of the, or rather a, human experience would be the same as telepathy.
Quoting Possibility
In that case it’s just not possible to communicate your thoughts to others. We are dependent on a common definition to be able to communicate. However, it’s not our definition because it is written down in a dictionary, but the other way around. Dictionaries only reflect our shared understanding of a word.
That's not a given. There is all sorts of stuff that we can be certain is true. The term "absolutely" doesn't add anything here either. Drop it altogether.
Are you certain that what you say is true... that we cannot be certain that anything is true?
Subjective truths, on the other hand, vary in their truth-status from individual to individual because they're colored by personal peculiarities (perception, imagination, emotions).
Certainty concerns knowledge and it's possible to be certain to varying degrees, from totally uncertain to completely certain, regarding our knowledge of objective truths.
I’ll assume you haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I suggest you do. I’ve stated it as a given for the purpose of this discussion because no, I cannot be certain that what I say is true for everyone else in the same way that it is for me.
I might claim certainty, but I would do so by ignoring, isolating or excluding the possibility of alternative perspectives, which can’t then be a claim to objectivity. I’m suggesting that objectivity and certainty can be considered a conjugate pairing.
Looks like a conflation of belief and truth, but I see that Banno is participating here, so I'm out. He's probably already voiced the right concerns.
So, given that you can spontaneously bring a thought into existence from nothing, how would you describe the relation between your existence and that of your thought?
Quoting Congau
A photograph was engineered to replicate the human experience of visual interaction as an isolated capacity. It makes a single interpretation of the light that most closely matches the human visual perspective, including many limitations, and then adjusts for certainty. The ‘truth’ of a photograph is then evaluated within the subjectivity of the broader human experience.
Anything made or conceived by humanity communicates something about the human experience in general, in particular about its capacity and limitations in relation to a more objective sense of truth.
Yes - they only reflect our shared understanding - they are not equal to it. I’m not dismissing the dictionary definition, I’m pointing out its limitations in relation to the possibility of a shared understanding that extends beyond the subjectivity that contributed to it. It helps to begin with a common definition, sure. But we need not be constrained by it in relation to reality, just for the sake of certainty. Your understanding of the potential and meaning of the word extends beyond the stated definition, as does mine. You’re just not willing to let go of the sense of certainty that a written definition offers.
It doesn’t come into existence from nothing. The point is that the thought, as it comes into being, doesn’t affect its source. (Sure, it may result in action which may later affect the material world, but that belongs to the future.)
Quoting Possibility
A particular camera is designed to absorb light in one specific way and render colors according to one method. Two photographs taken by the same camera will truthfully copy two instances of reality according to the same standard. A human looking at two objects may interpret one of them correctly and the other incorrectly even according to his own standard.
Quoting Possibility
In philosophy the certainty of a definition is of utmost importance and many a philosophical discussion fails because the substance of the matter slips away, and the opponents keep talking about different things. In daily life exact definitions are of much less importance as we generally know what the other person is talking about and if we don’t, the consequences are usually rather small.
What is the difference between a shoe and a boot, for example? How high around the ankle does the shoe need to be to become a boot? No one knows exactly, and it usually doesn’t matter, but if you run a shoe store, you may want to decide on an artificial distinction to conveniently classify your merchandise.
Similarly in philosophy, you may argue that the colloquial definition of “objective” is not watertight, but in that case you’ll have to decide on one that is, and then why not choose the dictionary definition as it is more likely to be recognized by the person you are talking to. As it now is, I have no way of knowing what you really mean by “objective” since you have admitted that you are working with an open-ended definition which as such cannot be clear even to yourself.
The source of a thought about an elephant isn’t the elephant. There is no actual elephant involved in thinking about an elephant. The way I see it, a thought is an energy event, a manifest interaction between potential information accessible to the system. The potential energy for that event comes from you, as the system. It is you who is affected by a thought as it comes into being, whether you entertain it or reject it.
A thought is a source of new potential information for the system, which then interacts with other potential information to manifest more thoughts. Each thought draws on the potential energy of the system itself for its existence, and any new potential information from that thought can be temporarily available to the system as possible ‘food for thought’ (to interact with other accessible potential information, manifesting more thoughts), or integrated by correlation with the memories, knowledge and beliefs of your unique conceptual system - necessarily affecting it/you. This amorphous structure of interrelated potential information informs and is informed by your interoceptive neural network as it also accesses new potential information from internal and external sensory systems, and makes continual predictions regarding the system’s potential energy and attention requirements (including thinking), thereby determining and initiating all your thoughts, words and actions.
So, the way I see it, all of this potential information is part of who you are, affecting you as an element of the material world. It doesn’t just belong to the future.
Quoting Congau
That standard constitutes the limits of a camera’s capacity to interpret light. The photograph is then a limited perspective of truth (ie. subjective), just as a human looking at an object renders a limited perspective of truth. The camera has no awareness of its standard. A human, however, may be aware of a standard, but that may not be the standard by which they actually determine and initiate thoughts, words and actions.
Quoting Congau
I recognise your need for certainty, but we’re discussing ‘objective truth’, of which we can be far from certain. As I mentioned to creativesoul, there is reason to consider objectivity and certainty as a conjugate pairing. In reference to the uncertainty principle, Einstein disagreed with Heisenberg’s interpretation, believing that particles had an ‘objectively true’ momentum and position at all times, even if both could not be measured. In the end, what either believed in relation to meaning is irrelevant to its functionality - Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle stands and is yet to be violated, regardless of interpretation. I think this is the case here. Unlike Heisenberg, I’m not going to abandon the existence of reality or in this case truth, because I believe its existence in principle as a possibility - of which we may either be objectively uncertain or subjectively certain but never objectively certain - is a necessary relation for all existence.
In philosophical discussion, it is our attempts to maintain both certainty and objectivity that contribute to the failure of discussions, particularly when the topic extends beyond our capacity for direct observation/measurement or proven fact. At some point, I think we need to recognise that any definition of ‘objective’ will always be uncertain, just as any definition of ‘certainty’ will always be subjective. It complicates discussion, sure, but I think that human communication and interaction are particularly suited to discussions about objectivity sans certainty.
This is where patience, integrity and self-awareness play an important role, and where humility, lack of information and error are experiences we can embrace as opportunities to learn. I want to thank you, in particular, @Congau, for your generosity, kindness and gentleness throughout our lengthy discussion on this topic. We see the world so differently, and I am learning so much from how patiently you articulate your perspective of truth.
You get input from somewhere, a real elephant, a picture, a story or from some other untraceable memory and mix it with your energy or however you would like to express it, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t really have a problem with this (apart from some of your confusing word choices like “potential information” but I guess we have already more or less cleared that up.)
Quoting Possibility
It belongs to the future in the sense that I am receiving information right now, then I process it and create a new state of reality. There is a time aspect of input > processing > output, even when it happens very fast. There exists an objective state of the world that is unalterable because it has already occurred, for example the world as it was on May 12, 2020 at 7pm GMT. That includes my own mental state at that point in time. Whatever I can make of it and use to change the state of the world, will occur after this point, that is in the future.
Quoting Possibility
The subjective part of our interpretation of the world is not really found in our perceptive organs, which would be equivalent to a camera (a machine) reproducing an image. Let’s imagine we all had the same eyesight and there was no color blindness and other confusing idiosyncrasies. We would get the same imprint on our retina, but that wouldn’t make our impression any less subjective. follow later Subjectivity follows when the actual interpretation happens (I’m looking at a rock, no, wait, it’s an elephant!). The mind as an interpreting entity is not yet active at the first visual impression, so there’s no reason to talk about subjectivity. Similarly, subjectivity is not really about our looking at objects from different perspectives and angles. If it were, all it would take would be for you to step into the spot where I’m currently standing, and you would see the world from my perspective. But you would still interpret this same visual impression differently, and that is subjectivity in the proper sense. Therefore the analogy with photography doesn’t capture the concept of subjectivity.
Quoting Possibility
I’m happy to hear that and I likewise appreciate your civil attitude and willingness to listen in spite of our disagreement. Fruitful discussions are not about reaching an agreement. It’s about achieving more clarity about one’s position, whether or not it is moved, while learning about other possible views.
This is the interesting thing, because (while it may not matter how I express it) it does matter where the ‘input’ comes from. First of all, if the memory is untraceable, then its uncertainty is more pronounced than if we could pinpoint the surrounding conditions of the potential information. A real elephant standing in front of us enables us to verify the surrounding conditions without being subject to the uncertainty with which our memory has been structured. A picture or story also relies on how we evaluate the certainty of someone else’s perspective.
Because of this, how you think about an elephant is going to differ in many ways from how I think about an elephant, whether we are both looking at the same photograph or the same animal in the wild. So, even if we both can say ‘I’m thinking that’s an elephant’, the thoughts will be different and affect the world differently as they each come into existence, despite the same language being used to express the event. A claim to certainty in stating ‘that’s an elephant’ is a reduction of all the information integrated from thought - excluding any of the incomplete or potential information which would improve objectivity, yet undermines the certainty in our perspective of truth.
Quoting Congau
This is where the way we expect information processing to work (ie. like a computer) should be pointed out as inaccurate with respect to human beings, at least. Neuroscience shows that we continually predict our future interactions with the world, rather than simply responding to stimuli as it occurs. To do this, the brain needs to act now on what potential information it has about the future, and then keep adjusting for accuracy as the moment of interaction draws closer. So I am anticipating a future state of reality (including my mental state) based on available potential information, and the actions I’m carrying out now are based on predictions made by my brain’s interoceptive network moments before. The state of the world includes me, and I am continually changed by potential information I integrate about the future. This fascinating temporal shift in consciousness messes with our understanding of ‘an objective state of the world’ in relation to our own mental state. It also raises the profile of potential information, bringing its impact firmly into the present.
Quoting Congau
I recognise this difference, but what I’m saying is that the distinction is one of dimensional aspect. The structural shift is the same. It’s pointless for me to try to illustrate the structural shift between subjectivity and objectivity at the five-dimensional level of human experience using an analogy at the same level of awareness, because there is no existing understanding of structural relations at this level. Analogy is not a claim to conceptual equivalence in every sense. I’m saying that the structural shift works the same way, just with an additional dimensional aspect. The relational structure of information between a photograph and a model shifts from two-dimensional to three-dimensional, inclusive of spatial information; likewise between the model and a working replica the structure shifts from three-dimensional information to four-dimensional, including a replication of temporal states. In the same way, the relational structure of information between a working replica (p-zombie) and human experience would need to shift from four-dimensional information to a five-dimensional structural relation, including a replication of atemporal intention, or integrated potential information.
Quoting Congau
We are in agreement here. :grin:
Does it?
I would think that neuroscience - if it shows anything - would show that we do both, because we do. If anyone or anything sayd that we do one or the other, as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if it cannot be both, as if we do not do both... well, they're quite wrong about that.
Thus...
We have reflexes, involuntary actions in our peripheral nervous system, where there is a direct link between sensory and motor neurons, sure. I’m referring to those connecting to and from the brain in particular.
You can be subjectively certain that it is true. But you cannot be certain of eliminating the remote possibility that you could be hallucinating, and therefore, you cannot be absolutely certain that you typing on your computer keyboard is what is true in an objective sense.
Quoting creativesoul
It’s not a logical premise. Perhaps ‘given’ was the wrong choice. It’s a parameter for this particular question about the notion of ‘objective truth’. I’m not necessarily stating that we can never be absolutely certain about anything. I’m saying that uncertainty is necessary to discussions about ‘objective truth’. If you limit the need for ‘objectivity’, then truth can be discussed with certainty. If you limit the need for ‘certainty’, then truth can be discussed objectively. But we can neither be objective about certainty, nor certain about objectivity.
Quoting creativesoul
I agree - who said anything about ought?
We can never have certainty. We don’t know if there is an elephant standing in front of us. But the objective truth, at any given moment, has only two possibilities: there is or there isn’t. Right now, for example, I think that I’m comfortably sitting at my desk, but I know that either there’s an elephant standing in front of me or there isn’t. (I go for the latter, but that’s just my subjective guessing.)
Always adding another perspective and including different points of view will not automatically increase objectivity. One may perhaps think that an article about Judaism would not be objective until it also included the opinion of neo-Nazis, but that is a misunderstanding. Adding ever more subjectivity can’t possibly increase objectivity. Rather “objective” as in “an objective article” would indicate the absence of any specific viewpoints as far as that is possible. Of course, it’s not possible to be completely objective in this sense, but one can always get closer to it.
However, this objectivity is not the same as objective truth. It may very well be that one subjective opinion is the objective truth, unknown to everyone including the person holding this opinion. In fact, every time I argue for something, I think that is the objective truth (that’s why I bother to argue) and I think it’s the same for you and anyone else (unless they argue just for sports like sophists). The ultimate objective truth would not be expressed in an objective and detached way.
I think that certainty is not something we can possess or claim without excluding the possibility of truth existing in any objective sense. You and I have been content to limit this need for certainty, enabling us to discuss objectivity in relation to truth. There are those claiming here that they are certain of something and imply that everyone else must be certain of it, also - or risk flights of fancy and wild imaginings in a bid to dislodge their claim. At the same time, they insist on doing away with terms such as ‘objective’ or ‘absolute’ as unnecessary in a discussion of truth.
Quoting Congau
That depends on what you mean by ‘adding’ and ‘including’. I don’t believe that we can ever express objectivity as such - the author of an apparently ‘objective’ article has taken pains to conceal the subjectivity and/or uncertainty in their statements, but has otherwise taken into account as many different perspectives of the subject matter as they can before presenting what is essentially the extent of their subjective ‘knowledge’. The absence of any specific viewpoints is an indication of writing style, not awareness. It can be seen as an exclusion of information (pertaining to the subjectivity and/or uncertainty of statements), rather than a progression towards truth in an objective sense. An expression that claims to be objective is an exercise in clarity, not truth.
Quoting Congau
When I argue for something, I think that is the truth as far as my limited perspective allows me. If I am certain enough to bother arguing my point, then I expect there will be some element of truth to a dissenting perspective that I may struggle to understand. For me, I can believe it to be objective truth only if it appears filled with possibility.
Quoting Congau
I agree. The ultimate expression of objective truth is all of reality.
This is confused, and unnecessarily so. My typing is an event, an occurrence. That's what's happened and/or is happening. The report thereof is what was/is true. Of that much I can be absolutely certain, and very well ought be.
Personally I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy, but for far different reasons than are being discussed here.
We can be absolutely certain about what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That is the basic point of our disagreement.
If there is a cat on the mat, then the statement "the cat is on the mat" is true. Of that, I am absolutely certain and very well ought be.
Agree?
I did because it is implicit in using the fact that we cannot be certain about everything as reason or justification for taking it a bit further and implying that we ought keep it in mind and that by doing so cannot be certain about anything.
You can be certain of the truth of your report only by excluding the possibility that you may be mistaken; and that yours is not the only valid perspective. There’s nothing wrong with that - it enables you to act and communicate with confidence - it’s just not an objective sense of truth.
I don’t see objective/subjective as a dichotomy. I think that’s a limited understanding of a dynamic that extends across multiple levels of awareness.
We can construct a value system - individually or collectively - about what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, within a limited perspective. Our certainty with regard to that relational structure and that truth depends on excluding the possibility or validity of alternative perspectives.
One can be certain that there is a cup in the cupboard without any further consideration whatsoever regarding the possibility of being mistaken or another's perspective(belief). One can be certain that that was true when spoken/considered by looking.
You and I have very different ideas regarding truth and certainty.
What is that, exactly?
:brow:
I'm curious since you invoked those terms in that order.
I suggest getting your vision checked.
Right - “without any further consideration whatsoever regarding the possibility” - that is, excluding the possibility. I could say ignorant, but most people don’t respond well to that word.
It is unfortunate that the words “viewpoint”, “standpoint”, “outlook” and “perspective” are more or less synonymous with “opinion” and “belief”. The former group draws the attention to the position of the believers and thereby makes their subjective opinion seem quite inevitable, excusable and the theoretical possibility of an objective truth more remote. After all, everyone of us possess a physical perspective that is unique in a rather trivial way. We were all born somewhere, grew up somewhere and have had concrete experiences that belong only to us. Even two twins are different simply because they occupy different chunks of space, and since no one can be on the same spot at the same time objectivity is thought to be impossible or even non-existent. But this kind of subjectivity is trivial since all it would take would be for someone to be in another person’s position and he would judge the world in the same way, and that clearly is not the case.
This is not your mistake since you believe in objective truth, but your notion of truth is somehow multiple, depending on the infinite number of different angles from which we can be hit by potential information and create our vision of reality. Is it objective just because anyone in the same position would have reached the same conclusion?
In a way, yes. But I’m not just talking about the same physical position, but to have occupied the same position over the entire course of their life: if they had experienced the same birth, childhood and sum total of intimate interactions or concrete experiences, then yes, they would judge the world in the same way. It does make the theoretical possibility of an objective truth much more remote than most are willing to admit, but nevertheless possible.
I think I can follow how, from your perspective, my notion of truth does seem to be multiple. There is a sense that truth or reality is the world in which we act and speak, but not the world in which we think and imagine. In that sense, truth is only what everyone can share, and is therefore limited to the proposition, duration or proven actuality of that relation: ie. an observable/measurable connection or interaction. So to posit an ‘objective’ truth as inclusive of what everyone thinks or imagines is to suggest a multi-faceted notion of such truth that doesn’t correspond to what we understand to be an ‘interaction’ as such - even though it is a relation, nonetheless.
Think of it as relating to something from the inside, as if you were trying to ascertain the three-dimensional structure of a building only by photos of its interior. It isn’t easy, but it’s still possible if you have enough different photos and enough points of reference that overlap - ideally you can then turn that construct inside out by recognising how the way you see the interior information presented in 2D corresponds to an overall 3D shape. It’s a process of trial and error, because it can be difficult to recognise when you have enough different perspectives to faithfully render the entire structure. But if your own perspective was limited to one room, then surely all those photos would together constitute a more objective view of the building?
I’ve deliberately removed the notion of uncertainty, here. So is objectivity, in this analogy, only the interior doors, passageways and shared walls that connect these photos to your own perspective, or is it a 3D rendering of all the other information in the photos with regard to the rest of the building? I agree that the former is necessary to begin the process, but the latter is required if you hope to complete it, no matter how remote that possibility.
Our conception of objects are based on two elements: perception and judgment. The judgment we both call subjective, but you want to call individual perception objective since other individuals would have perceived exactly the same if they had had the exact same background experience. My only candidate for objectivity, on the other hand, is what might be called the thing in itself - independent of an observer, but that leaves it open what to do with perception as opposed to judgment. Well, the two can’t really be separated and even two individuals imagined to have lived the exact same life would judge their experiences differently. You may be imagining an observer stripped of subjective judgments, something like a machine, a camera or a robot, or a human being as a mere thought experiment. The moment a person left out his judgment (if that were possible) he would see the world “objectively” in your sense of the term, even though that vision would still be unique to him and could not be copied by anyone else. Is that so?
But we are never content with what we see. We automatically try to include perspectives we don’t possess; we assume the object has a backside and even imagine what it looks like; then it is subjective and likely to be objectively wrong.
If we don’t make a judgment, we don’t really see at all. A dog “sees” the same objects as the human members of the household, but unless it is food or its leash it means nothing to that pet; it’s neither subjective nor objective, it’s nothing.
And again, why is that? Why isn’t any utterly useless information about something existing just as true as something heavily pregnant with significance? There aren’t any degrees of truth; something is either true or not true. Either A or not A.
I’m not saying that you are not onto something important, though. Of course, you don’t bother to argue for the truth of some ridiculous detail that wouldn’t expand our knowledge of the universe anyway.
In our discussion I have made sure to call it “objective truth” to avoid any doubt about where I stand on the issue: Truth is always objective. For me, therefore the qualifier “objective” is redundant, but that’s not the case for you, is it? By ”objective” I think you mean something like ‘that which can be included in our common understanding of reality’ or at least ‘that which can be included in my systematic understanding of the relationship between things’. Scattered details, though true, you don’t call objective if they remain isolated. Am I right?
This definition wouldn’t neatly fit in with the dictionary definition, as we have already suggested. Then why don’t you instead try to find another word for the idea you’re trying to get across to avoid confusion?
Yes. I agree that two individuals imagined to have lived the exact same life would have the capacity to ‘judge’ their experiences differently within the exact same potentiality. To that end, I believe that we express this objectively irreducible potentiality using language, mathematics, logic, morality, etc (even quantum mechanics and art) - as a broad limitation of possibilities.
Judgement (thank you, by the way, for pointing out the distinction) is inclusive of meaning, though - and it is here that a challenge arises to withhold ‘judgement’ (as the reductive process) for one further stretch of the mind towards objectivity as the possibility of what is real and true in itself, independent of experience. Because the truth of language is not in the instance of the word or the statement, but in its reference to a relation of meaning.
Meaning (as I see it) is how something matters or informs. Not necessarily how much it matters or why, or even in what way (although that is all part of it, as potentiality). And not necessarily knowing how, or being able to define how, either. Before I reduce all potential information I have to something useful, I recognise that there exists possible information in the objective reality surrounding all experience that matters and informs the world beyond my own perception of it. Even if I cannot perceive how it matters to me or to humanity or to the universe as I understand it, it still matters objectively in some way. From that understanding, the possibility that my perception (as well as yours) is limited in some way in relation to objectivity enables us to discuss truth, reality and meaning as possibilities independent of our own perception and judgement.
Whether or not it’s possible for a person to ‘leave out’ their judgement, I think we can be aware of it, allow for and even adjust for it in discussions in such a way that we recognise it as a limitation of our existence in relation to objectivity.
This statement of mine was describing the limitation of my perception, as I see it. But possibility is not necessarily significance - there is no ‘utterly useless information’, objectively speaking. Information is, by nature of the term, that which informs. Nevertheless, there is plenty of information out there which would be considered useless to humans, as far as its capacity to inform is currently beyond our capacity (or willingness) to be informed by its existence.
Quoting Congau
I do understand that the qualifier ‘objective’ is redundant in relation to truth. But I also recognise that when people make a claim to truth, the ‘truth’ they’re claiming is not objective, but a limited perspective of what is true. What we might consider to be ‘utterly useless information’ is still true - we’re just uncertain of how to relate to this truth.
I do consider ‘scattered’ details to contribute to objectivity, but so long as how they contribute is uncertain, this is possible information. Consider the infernal ‘buzzing’ noise that led scientists to discover CMB radiation as remnant of the Big Bang in the 1960s. Interestingly, such ‘white noise’ is now automatically corrected for in digital signals, excluded as ‘useless’ information.
Quoting Congau
Because I still consider ‘objective’ to be that which is “not dependent on the mind for existence” - I just think that ‘actual’ is a limited understanding of what this can be.
I’m afraid I’m still struggling to grasp the meaning of your basic terms. Would the following have any relevance?:
I have a plastic bottle on my desk. I think that is objectively true since I believe most people would identify it as such. The fact that it is made of plastic or some plastic-like material is the most basic (actual?) information. Even a dog would recognize the characteristic of this material, perhaps without putting much meaning into it beyond that. For the dog it is what it is, so to speak, a lump of plastic. For us it is also a bottle, that is a cultural artifice, but there is nothing about the object itself that makes it such a thing. An alien wouldn’t see a bottle, but maybe it would remind him of some object known in his world. Would this “bottle” then have the potential of being something else, of having another meaning?
Quoting Possibility
It may be that they are confused about the meaning of objectivity being misled by the modern emphasis on individual sovereignty and the so-called right to decide what is right for oneself? They think that if taste is subjective any other impression is also subjective, but when they actually make a claim, they are implicitly stating their opinion about an objective truth.
What is not dependent on the mind for existence? I understand why you’re saying that the most basic information is the plastic-like substance, its actuality. That seems to be the truth of the object that exists regardless of what you or I think about it. Even if the dog was able (or cared enough) to argue with you, he couldn’t deny that it’s made of plastic. I’m not saying that this isn’t objectively true - I’m arguing that this is not the sum of objective truth.
A dog doesn’t know (or care) what the bottle is made of. From the dog’s perspective, the truth of the object is what it might hold for him (water) or the potential it has to inform him in terms of his relationship to you (relative to other information, it could mean that you’re about to go to work or take him for a walk, or that you’ll be spending more/less time at this desk). All of this is potentially related to objective truth. Other than that, it’s likely the bottle is just noise, or useless information.
So while you can confidently say it is objectively true that you have a plastic bottle on your desk, very little of that information means anything to your dog. Which is fine, as long as you don’t care how your dog relates to the world. And the fact that he doesn’t care about particular information renders him ignorant from your perspective - even though the potential truth he gets from perceiving the bottle on your desk may be more than you realise, and even more than you may get from the same experience.
The objective truth is that something exists. That is what I see as the most basic information. The next most basic information is what matters, objectively speaking. From there, the truth is that we each perceive the potential information of any experience differently, and therefore make different predictions about reality, according to the unique actuality of our own existence.
The reason I prefer to conceptualise from the top (possibility) rather than the bottom (actuality), is because I’m less likely to miss potential information this way that may enable me to interact with the world more objectively. I realise that we can confidently build a concept of truth from our reduction of information to a common actuality (in a classical sense). The thing is that we don’t interact with or determine our actions (and words) based on the actuality of the world, but ALWAYS on our concept of its future potential. Conceptualising truth as actuality renders us ignorant of the wealth of potential information that contributes to our predictions, whether or not we’re consciously aware of it doing so. It is only when other perspectives conflict directly with our concept of truth, threatening prediction error (suffering), that we may recognise that one of us is inaccurately perceiving and predicting the truth.
If we argue that our perception - and therefore our actions and words - are based purely on actual information as ‘objective truth’, then we’re being dishonest (or at least ignorant). Because the truth of our experience, objectively speaking, is that we always act on uncertain future predictions of what is true. So we cannot even be certain that the ‘logical’, ‘emotional’ or ‘moral’ reasoning we give for our actions or statements is the truth independent of our limited conscious experience of it.
But the more aware we are of all this potential information - its unavoidable uncertainty, the many ways we can structure it and how that changes our interactions - the more we can improve the accuracy of our predictions, reducing prediction error and thereby increasing our capacity to interact with the world with minimal actual suffering. And if we’re also aware that there is information of which we cannot even perceive its potential to inform, then we are open to at least relating to the notion of objective truth, no matter how remote the possibility.
Plastic exists independently whereas a bottle is dependent on the human mind to exist, but not on any specific mind. Anyone I asked above the age of three would probably identify this thing as a bottle, so that is also an objective truth. I thought this distinction might be relevant to your scheme, but maybe it isn’t.
Quoting Possibility
Even though I see what you mean when you say that the dog may use the bottle as a piece of information indicating it will soon be taken for a walk, and you call this information potential truth, I don’t think it’s necessary (or even right) to separate potentiality from actuality in a question of truth. Potentiality exists as actuality. In a seed, the plant it might become, the potential of becoming a nasturtium, is now actually present in that seed. The information is actual, and a biologist could ascertain that under a microscope. The bottle on my desk is actually there, and that is the actual truth that the dog uses to make its inference. Your “potential truth” may or may not become an actual truth, so it is not the truth now, which means that it’s not the truth at all. On the other hand, potentiality existing as actuality, is now the truth, that is truth proper. Potentiality is certainly important, and we are always on the lookout for potentiality in things in order to predict the future, but the truth that we see is in what is actual.
Our perception is based purely on actual information, what is there at the moment of perception. I see a rock and think it is an elephant, but still my visual perception is based on information that is actually there, that greyish thing.
Our action and words are a different matter. They are in addition based on our judgment and implications of our judgment of what we perceive. We start putting meaning into the object of perception the moment we have perceived it. (It may happen at the same time, but conceptually it’s a sequence). You see someone catching a ball, conclude that your team has won the game and then rejoice realizing what is in it for you (potential). Sure, all of that is included in what you take away from that simple event that would be a simple ball catching for another person, but even for you, what you have actually perceived is just the catching.
Everything we do is directed at the future, (if only the next moment in time) and everything we say is anticipating a response, but everything we have ever perceived belongs to the past.
A potential x is something that may become an x in the future but is not an x now. Potential information is something that may become information in the future but is not information now.
Whatever is, is actual. Information about a potential, is actual.
Is the simple naming of things the same as being completely objective about reality? I don't think so.
Just because we agree to acknowledge something as real doesn't mean we're objective about it.
‘Bottle’ and ‘plastic’ exist as conceptual structures in the human mind. Objective truth is not the concepts, but the reality these conceptual structures refer to, including the relation between a particular instance of the concept and all past instances in your experience and in mine, as well as the relation between your experience and mine. What exists independent of the mind would exist independent of language, which makes it difficult to clarify what I mean here. Our reliance on language to construct truth, and the reification of conceptual structures this leads to, limits our capacity to grasp elements of the truth that transcend language in experience.
Quoting Congau
This is another example of reifying concepts. If we can conceptualise it, then it’s real, but does that make it actual to anyone but us? Language doesn’t help us here, because the meaning of ‘actual’ crosses key dimensional divides between what is temporally located (3D), what has temporal duration (4D) and what exists only in its relation to time (5D). I’ve been using the term to refer to what at least has temporal duration, in that it has the capacity to act independent of awareness. But you use the term to refer to what exists for us to act on, which is inclusive of atemporal concepts such as plastic, bottle or the plant that a seed might become.
Potentiality exists in relation to actuality, and as such appears as actual by those who perceive it. A biologist observing a seed under a microscope is not looking at potential information existing in the seed as actuality, but conceptualising potential information in relation to predicting a future actuality, based on the relation between this particular instance of seed, and all past instances of seed in her experience. She can use language to transfer that potential information as a conceptual structure to another mind, and she can integrate the potential information in determining her own actions in a way that contributes to its actualisation.
Potential information is not inherent in the actual seed, then, but in the relation between the seed’s actuality and the capacity of the observer to perceive the potential for meaning in it. Otherwise it’s just noise. The truth that we see is what is actual - what we can act on - but objective truth is what is possible - what could be acted on, objectively speaking - even if it seems meaningless to us.
No, our perception is a process based on only a small amount of potential (incomplete) sensory information from the past - the rest of it is your mind predicting what is there by piecing it together with potential information already integrated into your conceptual system. What your body senses in the next moment then verifies or adjusts this visual perception after your brain’s prediction produces the initial thought. So, in fact, you perceived it was an elephant, then think it is an elephant as you perceived it was a rock, and then you see a rock.
Quoting Congau
But thoughts are also temporal events, so they work the same way as some actions and words. The difference is that some of our actions and words are based on conscious judgement driven by thought, while others are more like thoughts in that the ‘judgement’ is made in the affective prediction that then produces both thought and action/expression. In many cases, your brain predicts that the ball will be caught, meaning that your team wins the game and so your body is already poised to rejoice, having perceived the ball being caught, before the moment that the ball is actually caught. This is why, when that ball is dropped in the last second, you see team members awkwardly having to conceal a premature celebratory action already halfway through...
Quoting Congau
Everything the body senses belongs to the past, but perception is a process whereby the brain relates that past potentiality to an atemporal conceptual structure, creating an ongoing ‘present’ experience of consciousness or affect: a prediction of effort and attention requirements for the organism going forward.
Quoting Congau
Not quite. A potential x is not temporally located - this x exists not necessarily in the future but possibly in the past or the present, or all three. Its relational structure is uncertain. Information about a potential also points to the uncertainty or incompleteness of the relational structure - its lack of observable actuality or spatio-temporal location. Information about the seed’s actuality (it is a particular size and has a round shape) relates to information about the seed’s potential (the plant will become a nasturtium), but they are not the same information. “This is a nasturtium seed” seems like a statement of actuality, but the use of ‘nasturtium’ to describe the seed refers to its potentiality.
This seed is a potential nasturtium. It refers to something that exists inside the object now and is not really a prediction about the future. I am about to destroy this seed, so I know for sure that it will never become a nasturtium, but still, it is a potential nasturtium.
By “perception” I meant simple sense-perception or “what the body senses”. (I should have said that instead.) Our bodily senses inform us about the past only and provided we can trust our them, they give us the truth. We are still likely to be mistaken, though, since we make faulty judgments, drawing conclusions from a combination of sensual inputs.
In theory we can have knowledge about what actually exists. If our bodily senses don’t deceive us and we follow a valid deductive procedure we will grasp the truth (without really knowing that we know, of course). But about the future it is not even possible to have knowledge even in theory because our bodily senses can never register all signals that might be relevant. What we can not have knowledge about even theoretically, can not be the truth. It may be true that this is a seed, true that it is a nasturtium seed, true that it is a potential nasturtium, but neither true nor false that it will become a nasturtium.
What actuality of the seed is its potential? A biologist can look at its shape and size, but that tells you nothing unless you already know the relation of shape and size, etc to a seed’s possible future. She can even look at the DNA, but again this tells you nothing without a conceptual relation to genetics. There is nothing existing materially inside the object now whereby anyone simply observing it (without knowledge) would see the nasturtium it can become. It is the potential information we have as observers that renders the seed’s potential perceivable and meaningful as information. Objectively speaking, it’s all noise, but that noise is the reality from which we construct our perception of truth.
Quoting Congau
Fair enough. But the errors we make in judgement come from the fact that our body’s externally informed senses are limited by energy, attention and time constraints, so they contribute only a very small proportion of the information we are using at any one time in our perception of the world (and by ‘perception’ here I mean what the mind ‘sees’). If we consider only this external sensory information to be the truth, then we would be in a state that Feldman Barrett refers to as ‘experiential blindness’, with the brain struggling to make sense of the noise. It is our conceptual (predictive) systems that enable the brain to construct a perception of truth from the fuzzy and incomplete potential information gained from the senses in relation to ALL our experiences so far.
Quoting Congau
Do you recognise the subjective expression of these statements? You are limiting truth to what we can theoretically have knowledge of as human beings, rather than what exists objectively, independent of the mind.
No, I’m not talking about what is just not practically possible to know about because of our human limitations. A superman or an extremely powerful computer couldn’t know it either. It’s not practically possible to know everything within an enormous pool of facts, but as long as the pool is finite, it’s theoretically possible. It’s not theoretically possible to know the future because the possible combinations of interacting facts are literally infinite. (Because they are infinite they are not objectively existent.)
A potential that exists inside a thing is objective and knowable, but for that potential to develop into a future existence, combinations of factors must be realized, and those possible combinations are not present anywhere now. A can connect to B, but it can also connect to C. The seed (A) can connect to optimal conditions (B) or to my destroying it (C). B or C are not present in the seed, or anywhere in the world for that matter.
Quoting Possibility
Who says anyone needs to observe it? The potential is inside the seed whether a scientist studies it or not, just like the unobserved falling tree makes a noise.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, in other words we only we only register a tiny fraction of the potential information we casually encounter. We see it, but we don’t notice it or don’t make sense of it. We see the seed, but not all the data it could convey.
I admit that there is another sense in which everything is predetermined and thereby theoretically predictable. If everything is reduced to quantum mechanics, the quantity of moving molecules is finite and constitutes an extremely complicated version of rolling billiard balls. In that case, there would be no difference between what is potential and what will be actual; there would be no potentiality that wouldn’t eventually turn into actuality. The nasturtium seed wouldn’t have the potential of becoming a nasturtium if it was destined to be destroyed before it reached that stage. That would eliminate the distinction between actual and potential, and between past and future in a truth condition.
(If we assumed some sort of religious determinism, that would also do the same trick.)
However, within our physical world of objects with shape and form and a diversity of kinds of events all truths can be theoretically known (although in practice we can’t know anything). If it’s possible to know that I’m now typing (which it isn’t) it is also possible to know the content of any hidden seed. If it exists as a category of our perception (in our physical world), it exists independently of the mind but can theoretically be brought into the mind.
A superman or extremely powerful computer still have human limitations, just not as many. Possible combinations of interacting facts are potentially uncountable, but that doesn’t make them literally infinite. They’re also potentially unknowable, but neither does this render them non-existent as objective possibilities. Objective truth has nothing to do with knowing the future. That future possibilities exist in an objective sense is not dependent on a perceived or even an imagined capacity to know them. The moment we imagine a possibility - even as we then dismiss it as ‘not theoretically possible to know’ - its existence has possible meaning beyond the existence (and current limited capacity) of the human mind. I recognise this seems pedantic, but it is this kind of impossible speculation that enables us to have conversations like these. It is the use of imaginary numbers, for instance, that enable mathematicians to carry out seemingly impossible calculations, and determine the probability of what was once deemed ‘not theoretically possible to know’.
Quoting Congau
These combinations of factors that must be realised in order to develop a potential don’t need to be present now - they, too, can be perceived as potential to develop into a future existence. I can be aware of, connect and collaborate with this potential to develop the optimal conditions required for developing the potential perceived in relation to the seed, and I can simultaneously perceive my potential to destroy the seed. These optimal conditions are perceived as potential information in everything around us: available space in the garden, suitable soil, access to water and nutrients, the time of year, etc. I need not be a passive observer - I can perceive my own potential in relation to the potential of these conditions, and increase the probability of the seed developing into a future existence by determining actions to initiate both now and well in the future. This relation of potentiality is an existing truth - whether or not it changes in the future, and whether or not anyone else knows, it exists now, within me, as ‘objective and [theoretically] knowable’ as the potential inside the seed. The fact that understanding the complexity of the human brain and mind in the same way that a scientist understands the inner complexity of the seed is beyond our current capacity, doesn’t change this.
Quoting Congau
How do you think we come to that understanding? From previous observations and experiences in relation to a potential observation of a fallen tree. We’re not talking about an actual, unobserved falling tree, but a potential one: the potential falling tree has the potential to make a potential noise. And if we come across an actual fallen tree, we relate this sensory information to the potential information we have and conclude in our minds that in some past instance of this tree falling, it made a noise. And we present that information in our words. But the potential for noise is not entirely present in the tree alone, but in the structure of potential information in our mind in relation to our interaction with the tree (ie. our observation).
Quoting Congau
The possible information that seed could convey is always limited by the potential of the interaction, and is always much more than anyone can perceive.
I think you misunderstand the nature of quantum mechanics here (or perhaps this refers to an interpretation that I’m not familiar with). As far as I can see, there are no ‘rolling billiard balls’ in quantum mechanics. It isn’t an alternate world that doesn’t correspond to our physical world of objects, but is in fact the foundation of the physical world itself. You’ve lost me here, sorry.
If you don’t limit the idea of potentiality to what is actually present inside an object (like the grown plant is present inside the seed) anything has the potential for anything and it makes no sense to talk about an objective potential truth. You may one day become the king of France, there is objectively speaking nothing that excludes that possibility. It’s not very likely since France doesn’t have a king now and you don’t have royal blood, but strange things have happened before in history.
Potentiality as sheer possibility is literally infinite. There are an infinite number of facts and they can be combined in an infinite number of ways. I have an infinite number of possibilities for what I can do the next hour or even the next minute. The number of possible sentences is infinite, and I could potentially write anything in my next sentence.
Where is the objective truth in this? “Potential truth” is infinite and what is infinite cannot be existent as a fact of the world. Your truth slips away into nothing.
Determinism could save the argument claiming that all potential is limited and present as an actual truth, but an infinite potential is meaningless.
I have not suggested here that we have the capacity to know ‘objective truth’, that it exists as a ‘fact’ of the world, nor that it should make sense to talk about objective truth as if it were something actual. I consider the notion of objective truth to be this sheer possibility, meaningless in itself and yet filled with infinite potentiality, from which we then distinguish all possibility of meaning - limited by a perspective of what could matter in our relation to the world.
It is possible that you could write anything in your next sentence, but your potential to write anything is limited by your perception of what could possibly matter, what you understand and value (in terms of language, knowledge, beliefs, etc), and by what you feel is worth your effort and attention to write in this moment, whether or not you are conscious of that affect. This, I consider to be objectively true, even as I recognise that my expression of this truth is limited by my own perspective of what could possibly be true, what I understand and value, etc.
When the potential is infinite, our investigation is not aimed at objective truth, which is absolute, but probability. You have the potential to become the king of France, but it’s extremely improbable; a chance of one in a trillion or whatever. A measure of probability is the only scientific goal when attempting to predict the future or looking to understand the meaning of the potentials we observe. When rolling a die there’s a sixth of a chance to get a six, but what does that mean in terms of truth? It means that the die is cubed, and one side has six dots. Since it’s completely symmetrical, none of the sides is physically favored. That’s the whole truth.
The oil prices have been low this year. That fact in isolation favors low prices next year. That’s the actuality that has a truth value.
Quoting Possibility
When we say that a potential is limited, we mean that something has inside itself the possibility to reach this far but not farther.
“His potential as a footballer is limited.” He may get to play for a decent team, but he’ll never play in the premier league; the probability for that to happen is considered to be zero.
The potential for what I can write in the next sentence is unlimited, although a certain content is definitely favored.
Potentiality is only relevant to truth when referring to actuality.
A quantitative measure of probability in relation to an isolated future event is all a physicist can hope to achieve with any degree of certainty, while continuing to claim objectivity. But this is a narrow perspective of potential in relation to objective truth.
“When rolling a die” assumes the existence (and uniformity) of a die to be rolled, a means of rolling it and a surface to roll on, even the value or significance of rolling a six, but all of this is potential information. The die is not currently rolling - we are describing a potential event. Because of this, we can isolate a measure of probability, or even a description of the die, as if it constituted the ‘whole truth’. But in relation to objective truth, there is more potential information we have excluded here, or assumed to be uniform. Granted, very little of it may change the probability of rolling a six (unless the die is weighted), but it can change the potential of what this roll of the die means in terms of truth.
Let’s try a different example. Some hydrangeas have pink flowers, and some have blue. Given this information, the probability of an isolated event of a hydrangea seed developing blue flowers could be roughly 0.5. But I can test the pH level of soil in order to predict the colour of hydrangea flowers from a seed planted in that location. And I can then add lime to that soil in order to increase the potential of those future flowers being blue. So is the potential for blue flowers actually present in the hydrangea seed, in the soil’s pH or in the lime? Or is it in my mind as a relational structure of potential information? The truth regarding the potential blueness of future hydrangea flowers is theoretically ‘actual’ - ie. I can act on the information - even when the probability of a plant growing and flowering remains uncertain (as I have yet to decide whether to plant the seed or destroy it, let alone whether I want blue flowers or pink). But all that potential information as an incomplete relational structure is not present anywhere except in my mind.
Quoting Congau
You’re not stating a fact, but a perspective. His potential as a footballer, or as anything, is ultimately limited by time, effort and attention, but I don’t believe all this limitation or potentiality is necessarily inside of him, and I don’t believe it is static. So much of our potential comes down to our interaction with others. If it weren’t for someone else believing in my vision, giving me a chance, showing an interest, or sharing their experience, I may never have become the person I am today.
The possibilities of what to write in the next sentence are unlimited. The potential for what I can write is limited only by time, effort and attention; but the potential of what I can write in the next sentence is limited as much by the words I currently have in my vocabulary as what matters to me. Nevertheless, this potential appears to me unlimited, because I can’t perceive what I can’t perceive.
Potentiality appears to us only relevant to truth when it refers to the actuality of our perspective. Objectively speaking, however, potentiality and its limitations are always relevant to truth. They’re information about our subjective position in relation to objective truth. I can relate to (ie. imagine) the unlimited possibilities of what to write beyond what I know, and in that relation, catch a glimpse of the current limitations of my own potential as an opportunity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond them. This is a truth we don’t get when referring to actuality, when perceiving our own potential as unlimited: it’s the truth we have yet to understand about the world.
You can bang your keyboard randomly and happen to write a line from an 17th century poem in the Farsi language. It’s highly unlikely, but it’s a possibility.
Of course, we must take into account everything we deem relevant in the current condition, including the subjective state of our mind, to make an estimate of what is reasonably probable, but all we can achieve is an expression of probability. How does probability relate to truth? There’s a one in six chance of rolling a six. That means, if I role the die six hundred times I may collect a hundred sixes, or maybe 99, or 101. It’s likely to be around 100 but the result may be anywhere from 0 to 600. There is no truth to be found when estimating what might happen, but the expression of probability (1/6) is a truth since it’s an expression of the shape of the die as it exists right now.
Likewise, the much more complicated probability concerning your next sentence, if it is to be objectively true, it must reflect all present relevant elements. (The ones you mentioned seem relevant and yes, you must also understand how they are connected to a likely outcome.) An estimate of the probability of a future event, as far as it is objectively true, is a correct assessment of the current state of affairs.
So all this is relevant information contributing to the possibility that eventually a six will be rolled. The potential information is all objectively there whether we have it or understand it, sure, I have no problem with that.
But when you add all this additional relevant information to the example you are just complicating the equation; it’s like doing math with big numbers, you don’t change anything about the principle. It’s just easier to use pure physics as an example instead of adding all kinds of “soft” information that contribute in a lot more undecisive way.
We can easily come up with a numerical value of the purely physical chance of rolling a six, the die already being in someone’s hand ready to roll: it is 1/6. But all those other elements that you mention could in theory be given a numerical value also. What is the chance that the person will throw the die at all? What is the chance the game will be played tomorrow?
We sometimes say things like “there’s a 90 percent chance I will come”, and although we know we are dealing with a probability that doesn’t really lend itself to an accurate numerical estimation the principle is the same. There is something existing in the current state of affairs that makes it quite probable that something will happen (that I will come). I am looking at the world as it is now, including my position in it, that is the actual truth that I use in my estimation. I notice it has a potential in it (my coming) that can be expressed numerically, but not as truth.
The chance of coming into being is one in six, or ninety percent or whatever, but that doesn’t express a truth about what will happen. The truth is what is, what is actual. If “90 percent chance” expresses a truth, it’s about how the world is now (actual) not about what might happen (potential).
We keep going around in circles here. You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’.
Our estimate of the current state of affairs is a more accurate perspective of objective truth insofar as it takes all possibilities into account and then reduces the information to what is subjectively relevant to our estimated ‘current’ position. Equally, our estimate of a future state of affairs, while less certain, is still a more accurate perspective of objective truth insofar as it takes all possibilities into account and then reduces the information to what is subjectively relevant to our estimated future position as a probabilistic prediction of effort and attention requirements.
These are both temporally subjective views of what exists regardless of temporal location. It is the latter that I consider to be a more accurate view of objective truth - in that it has discarded less possibilities as irrelevant. It describes something akin to a quantum ‘superposition’ in relation to objective truth. This is my point: we need to recognise this probabilistic superposition as the location from which the brain will always act, regardless of the reasoned ‘current’ position that follows. The brain does this because it is more accurate, long term, in relation to objective truth.
When I talk about probability, it isn’t only in the mathematical sense. I’m not suggesting that a numerical value is what is true. Probability in quantum mechanics isn’t a numerical value such as a percentage. It’s an irreducible equation, which in a non-mathematical sense is an expression of a relationship. It is the relationship that is true, regardless of what value we attribute to each variable.
Can you develop this thought further? I agree with you that abstract terminology is not very useful until we see how it is applied in the context of the game. [You may enjoy reading about game theory if you haven't already]. The game has rules, as does nature. Violate the rules, and you are penalized or maybe even lose the game entirely, i.e., die.
Of course, in game theory, the player is focused on a calculation of the optimal outcome given the odds. In this sense, the absolute truth is always expressed as a relative value, and so the algorithm for the best decision is a mathematical expression of probability. Is this mathematical expression what you're referring to as the "absolute?" The problem is that math is not the reality, but a set of symbolic expressions that describe reality. In using the number "one" is there a corresponding "thing" that is a singularity that exists independently of the number, or are we just stacking abstractions? Is it an absolute truth that there is one and only one BitconnectCarlos? As far as we know, yes. But at this level of gameplay, the rules are trivial. Kick it up a few notches and the "absolute truth" issue is more apparent: "BitconnectCarlos has an immortal spirit." You'll find a number of religions that will assert that truth on your behalf. Apply game theory probability to that proposition, and see where it gets you. Still, people will cite "Pascal's wager" as if the math indeed supported the proposition. But now you have a religious authority that is defining the rules of the game, and not only that, but assigning the probabilities according to a rule book called the Bible, or the Koran, or Torah, or the Upanishads, etc.
So, my bottom line is that game theory [or mathematical reduction-ism] is great at addressing one limited class of questions but lousy for the big question of what is "absolute" truth. Please share any disagreement.
Can’t any probability in principle be expressed as a numerical value? We do it very inaccurately, of course. We say a great chance or a small chance, but that suggests that it could conceivably be translated into a percentage. 90% = very probable, 99% = almost certain. It doesn’t make it more meaningful and the numbers suggest an accuracy that we don’t possess, but it can be done in principle. If the probability for x to happen is greater than for y to happen, that already indicates the same principle as a percentage.
Quoting Possibility
It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing.
A believer in determinism can logically claim that the future is objectively existent. For him it wouldn’t really make sense to talk about probability; everything is 100% or 0%, even the chance of rolling a six. He may give it a percentage estimate to express his ignorance, though (there’s a 17% chance of rolling a six) just like we may give a percentage estimate to express our uncertainty about something in the past. (I’m quite sure it really happened, 90% sure) but that is not to be confused with an expression of probability.
Probability as future occurrence cannot be an expression of truth since that would suggest that truth can be manifold, but probability as rooted in the present is one (one state of affairs)
In principle, I suppose it can. This is likely a misunderstanding on my part. Probability is a mathematical reduction of potentiality, and is determined by assigning a numerical value to the probability of all possibilities (assuming they’re all known). The uncertainty of saying a ‘great chance’ or a ‘small chance’ suggests the irreducibility of this potentiality, because our perception of it (our knowing the existence, let alone the probability of all possibilities) is limited. So when we say ‘I’m 90% sure it really happened’, this is not really probability, is it? It’s an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to a limited perception of potentiality. Still, as such it remains an expression of truth from that limited position. There is no objective reason why this can’t be the same for future events.
Quoting Congau
Well that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity.
Quoting Congau
Why can’t truth be manifold? The way I see it, the future is objectively existent, but as one of countless possibilities, the probabilities of which are necessarily interrelated at various levels. I’m not talking alternate spatial dimensions or many possible worlds. Just as there can be multiple possible electrons equidistant from a nucleus, there can also be multiple possible experiences existing at an equal temporal location in my future.
I can say ‘I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow’ based not just on what I have observed/measured, but also informed by familiar patterns of relative probability among countless possibilities. That is an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to my limited perception of potentiality. It is an expression of potential truth from my limited position, and exists in the potential future relative to that position. This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true.
This is why we conceptualise the world; because it enables us to construct these complex interrelations of potentiality according to their relative, irreducible value in spacetime, without the energy or attention requirements to continually process this amount of information rendering our existence prohibitive.
Please explain. Distance between here and there only refers to the relationship between subject and object. When something is objective, there is no subject and no distance, right? The relativity of time and space also excludes an intrinsic meaning of distance, doesn’t it?
Quoting Possibility
Right. That’s not about probability only about individual uncertainty, and as such it is a piece of psychology and therefore it has objective truth to it. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. The state of someone’s mind is an objective truth (although not available for anyone else). “I’m 90% sure it happened yesterday” and “I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow” are equivalent as a statement about objective truth. The truth condition is referring to the mind of this “I” and not to the event in question.
Quoting Possibility
The accuracy of that 90% estimate is not dependent on anything outside of you. You may have had a dream or you may be intoxicated, you have that level of certainty whatever caused it. Of course, I would trust you prediction more if I knew you were basing it on observation and knowledge of familiar patterns and the more exhaustive the more trustworthy, but the probability as such cannot reach an accurate estimate when the potential information is infinite. The chance of rolling a six is 1/6 and that is a true and accurate estimate when occurring in clinical isolation (just assuming that necessary preconditions, like intention to roll, are already met) but the kind of potentiality you are talking about aims at incorporating as much information as possible, and of course the amount of information can never be exhaustive so the accuracy of the prediction can never be definite, that is to say objective. It depends on how much information you, the subject, have been able to collect. “This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true”, you say, but that can’t exist even in theory since the complexity of the relation is literally infinite.
It defies basic logic to think of truth as manifold. Either A is true, or A is not true and switching to future tense makes no difference: Either A will happen, or A will not happen; both can’t be true.
Sure, expressed as a possibility they are not mutually exclusive. A may happen, and A may not happen.
But “may” and “may not” don’t constitute separate truths. In fact they are both included in the exact same truth condition. Saying “A may happen” not only does not exclude “A may not happen”, it implies it. If it is true that A may happen, it follows logically that A may not happen.
Possibility must be understood as one, covering one area of possible events. Imagine a circle: inside the circle there are an infinite number of points representing possible events distinguished from each other by tiny details, but the mathematical point is non-existent as such, only the area exists, and it is one. Outside the circle is the rest of the universe: it represents everything that cannot possibly happen; it is what is not true.
For the future there is only one truth, what is possible, and that one truth is existent as one in the present.
I’m not talking about logic, though. Objective truth, expressed as a manifold possibility, isn’t about separate ‘truths’, and from memory I have yet to employ the plural of the term here (if I have, it was unintentional). What is true is this possibility: A may happen, A may not happen.
There seems to be some contradiction here. If you are imagining a circle excluding what is not true, then you are not understanding possibility as one, but as one of. I agree that saying ‘A may happen’ does imply that ‘A may not happen’, and it is this binary possibility (1,0) that is objectively true as one. The circle you are imagining refers instead to a subjective perception of limited potential: what CAN (possibly) happen is isolated from what CANNOT (possibly) happen. Whether this circular distinction is determined by logic, morality or some other limited perspective, it is a subjective limitation imposed on truth.
Quoting Congau
Quoting Congau
When something is objective, there is no subject, but there is still relative distance between objects. And that distance makes a difference to what subjectively constitutes ‘the past’ for either object. My point was that what exists ‘right now’ or ‘in the past’ is not objective, because it refers to this relationship between subject and object, for which it does matter how distant.
Quoting Congau
I don’t think you can dismiss this as ‘a piece of psychology’ not available for anyone else. How else does a future event exist, except in relation to someone’s mind? The state of someone’s mind is available as potential information: in their thoughts, words and actions. The information is uncertain and manifold, but it IS potentially available.
Quoting Congau
Yes. We already dismissed the likelihood of an accurate estimate when we eliminated certainty from the discussion.
Quoting Congau
The possibility of infinite complexity does not preclude its existence, only our capacity to understand it.
The only truth in a question of possibility is what can happen and that is determined by nature. A nasturtium seed cannot become an apple tree, but John Smith can become the king of France. In social science pretty much anything is potentially true as long as it doesn’t contradict the possibilities of nature and formal logic.
All sciences deal with truth and if a social scientist takes it upon himself to investigate John Smith’s royal potential, he aims at producing a truth statement. His conclusion, for example one in a billion, is a truth statement. It claims to have investigated all normal paths to royalty and have found them blocked. The procedure is the same as for natural science, only that there’s an infinity of contingencies that can never be exhausted, therefore one is left with an expression of probability.
But how are we ever to distinguish the truth in a statement of probability. What’s the difference between one in a billion and fifty/fifty? Whatever happens in either case doesn’t prove anything. It may rain tomorrow and John Smith may become the king of France, and those statements are equally true. Only when looking at the state of things as they now are (the actuality) does the probability express a truth. In the potential as directing towards the future, there is no truth.
You keep returning to logical and actual truth, as if they’re the only way something can be true. But the meaning of truth refers to the accuracy or reliability of an existing relation, which if it aims to be objective must be freed of the constraints of actuality, logic or time.
The etymology of the word ‘true’ suggests a gradual broadening of its definition to expand the concept in relation to meaning. Initially it meant ‘loyal and steadfast’, ‘honest’, or ‘faithful’. Later, the concept expanded, and the definition broadened to ‘accurate or exact’ in terms of relative positioning or direction.
More recently it has been defined in broader terms as an agreement of subjective position in relation to reality. I understand that for practical purposes, this is truth. If we constrain our position to what is logical, what is actual or what is now, then we can reach an agreement on that relative position. But it is not, and cannot be, objective as such. It is an agreement between limited subjective positions that ‘seems’ true because we’re excluding the possibility of a position existing beyond that limitation. If that’s as broad as you can understand the meaning of truth, then you would need to concede that there is no objective truth. If, however, you believe that an objective truth exists, then its objectivity would need to be free of all subjective constraints including logic, actuality and time. In this sense, the meaning of objective truth is an undifferentiated relation to objective reality. Truth is reality.
The problem as I see it, though, is that for ‘reality’ to have any meaning for you, it must be viewed from a position. So at this point, you will continue to argue that objective truth is a position, and we will go around in circles again. You’re unable (or unwilling) to break free of logic, actuality or time enough to consider the possible existence of an undifferentiated relation. It’s meaningless, yes - it exists and doesn’t exist. I recognise that this makes no sense to you, but this is where we need to be in order to understand the pure possibility of objectivity. It’s essentially a koan.
Looking at the etymology of this word can only lead us astray. Why a certain sound has come to represent a certain concept is philologically interesting and in a few cases, but far from all, it may tell us something about human psychology (most of the time it’s a result of a rather arbitrary development). In philosophy, however, it is desirable to strive for pure concepts that are untainted by cultural connotations of words. That is often not possible, lamentably, but in the case of this concept “true” I’d say it is. Any language would have a concept of it even if there may not be an exact one to one translation of the English “true” in all languages. The philosophically reductive concept refers to what is correct and really existent as opposed to what is incorrect, a lie and a phantasy.
Quoting Possibility
How can you call logic a subjective constraint? Two plus two equals four whatever anyone thinks or whether there is anyone there to think at all.
Actuality is reality and real reality is as objective as anything can get. (In reality France doesn’t have a king although potentially it has.)
As for time, that is the reality of the human condition and a thing in itself beyond time in the Kantian sense, cannot be given a meaningful truth value at all. I think you are still operating within the categories of the world as we know it, though, so your inclusion of all mutually contradictory possibilities as truth would still be subjective if you think objectivity can only be found beyond time and space.
It is certainly not a position. It is not even a view. Your “objectivity” is one of ever-changing perspectives, is it? It’s a mixture of meaning from all possible and impossible standpoints, but there’s always some standpoint, so for you objectivity seems to be based on subjectivity. You disregard logic since all subjective observers are not logical, and their view must also be taken into account. You mix all possible positions and conclude that reality is not viewed from a position.
“The view from nowhere” is quite non-sensical because it tries to include two contradictory ideas. To make something objective we have to do away with any idea of “a view”; there is no position. Logic is not a position, it is eternal reality; it exists without anyone looking at anything from anywhere.
If you admit that it is meaningless, how can you insist on its objective existence? Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. The moment something depends on something else to be conceptualized as existing, it is not objective. “It is soft” – depending on something being hard and a person judging. “Soft” is meaningless in itself – not objective.
Actually I don't think this is true. Objectivity is definitionally and conceptually linked dyadically with subjectivity. A thing is objective if it is arrived at through the intersubjective process of critical consensus (Popper). A thing is objective if it forms a part of the essential shared social milieu (Mead).
Let me clarify a few points here. First, it is one’s understanding of objectivity that is based on intersubjectivity. Second, I’m not disregarding logic, only acknowledging its limited position. Third, reality can only be viewed from a position, but my conclusion is that it exists regardless of any position. It is in relating to another’s subjective position relative to reality that we can strive to understand and integrate the difference between the two, and gain a more accurate perspective of reality in the process.
That is probably referring to the scientific method.
Quoting Pantagruel
That would be the practical meaning of objectivity. A common reference point is sufficient in our daily understanding of reality. We don’t have to go all the way back to a philosophical thing in itself every time we identify a common object. “This is a computer” we say in our social milieu. “This is a typewriter with a tv screen” one might say in another. Both are objectively true, although there is one underlying objectivity.
Quoting Possibility
Sorry, I should have said downplaying logic.
But again, I don’t understand how you can do that. Anything that is true must be logical. The law of non-contradiction just can’t be violated. How can you call that a mere "subjective constraint"?
It's actually Popper's own and central formulation, called critical or scientific realism.
I don’t think I’m downplaying it, either. I didn’t refer to it as ‘mere’ - that’s you downplaying subjective constraint, not me. I’m well aware of its significance; I’m questioning its necessity in relation to objective truth; not in relation to a statement of truth.
The LNC applies to propositional statements: stating a relational position. Anything that is true from a logical perspective must be logical. But the impossibility of what is illogical is also true. There is objective truth to the simultaneous possibility AND negation of an illogical existence - no propositional statement need be made to that effect. When you collapse or reduce that information to the false logic of a propositional statement, you assume a logical perspective.
Quoting Congau
Objectively, an undifferentiated relation is both meaningless AND meaningful: it is one’s position that collapses this information either way. The ‘view from nowhere’ is objective because it strives to include two contradicting ideas, rather than assuming a position by selecting one and excluding the other. Show me something that exists ‘alone and in itself’, and I’ll show you where you’re ignoring necessary relations.
There are two ways we can ‘do away with the idea of “a view”’: we can reduce the available information by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that suggests the possibility of an alternative view; OR we can strive to include all possible alternative views. As @Pantagruel suggests, objectivity is inclusive of intersubjective process and critical consensus. What you’re referring to is the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty. My argument is that this critical consensus and accompanying reduction of information, while necessarily practical, also detracts from its claim to objectivity.
We must distinguish between the method of reaching an idea of what the objective truth might be and objective truth itself. Sure, critical consensus is one important way to reach a semblance of certainty, but whatever it is we are investigating would have been there even if no one had bothered to look at it. Proper objectivity is not related to any subject; no observer at all. Of course, then we can’t really even talk about it, so the moment we start investigating we are in effect giving up the knowledge of total objectivity.
Shifting one’s point of view, imagining other people’s view, engaging in a critical exchange of meaning, getting an understanding potentials and possibilities, all of that constitutes the way to gain insight into all aspects of our world, but it is not the world. The world as it really truly objectively is, is inaccessible to us, and we have to settle for the best possible substitute, which is a critical approach to it through all the multiple tools at our disposal.
But there is a world beyond all the fog of subjective limitations and that’s what we are ultimately trying to catch a glimpse of. We can’t give up that goal even though it is unattainable.
But don't conflate this reductive tendency with the critical activity itself, they are not the same. So your criticism of critical objectivity applies yes to a reductionist criticism but not to criticism per se.