Can God's Existence be Proven Subjectively but not Objectively?

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Well in some way it is a belief, because the fact is we would not measure an eternal time interval anyway. The infinity/eternity of the world can only be inferred from a metaphysical thought. At least it can be argued that the world/universe does not have a boundary.

One other things worth mentioning and which would render the whole question meaningless is that one can argue that the world (universe, all there is) does not exist in the objective way, since there are no objective relations for the world in total. That conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there are no objects outside, apart and independent of the world. In that way, no objective relations can exist between the world (universe) itself and something strictly outside, independent and apart from it.

I agree with you that thinking either way (finitiy/infinity of the world) is something that can not be scientifically tested.
And for all that it is worth, it does not matter for our position here and now.

But since we can't know if there are or aren't things outside the universe (such as thoughts, or the mind in general, or God), you can't state it as a fact.

 

[heusdens]

But since we can't know if there are or aren't things outside the universe (such as thoughts, or the mind in general, or God), you can't state it as a fact.

You know better then that mr. Johny trigonometry.

It is just by definition the case that there is nothing 'outside' the universe , since that is already included in 'universe'.

This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge as such (in which case you might be right) but with abstract thought.

Universe is an abstract concept of thought, which by definition includes everything. For that reason, there is nothing outside the universe. And for that same reason, outside of our mind, this concept does not exist in reality, it is forever empiracally unknowable, since it has no objective existence.

If you are not content with that, or use another definition, then just change the name of your concept.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So you mean that by your definition, if God exists, then he exists within the universe? Then you say that the universe is just a thought? Then you go on to reiterate that you think the definition of the universe includes everything including God. I don't agree that God exists within the universe because I go by the cannonical defintion of the universe. My definition of the universe is all of space-time and all of matter-energy contained inside, along with the four fundamental forces. The definition of God that I go by is a being of infinite knowledge and understanding that doesn't exist in space-time, and isn't made from matter-energy, and perceives all the events within the universe from all points in the universe at all angles of view at all periods of time. You can think of God as the "highest dimensional being possible", able to see the whole picture at once because he doesn't soley exist within the picture alone. So by my definitions, God can't exist soley within the universe alone, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. It seems you have different definitions, and that is our problem here, that's all. If only you could accept that this is the problem...

I'm sorry if I don't appease your concept of reality, but then again I must in some way, because you've dreamed me into existence anyway. So think about it, you put me here to tell you these things, so that means that your higher self could see that you would need help because you'd get stuck in a rut. Maybe you should trust yourself and consider what I'm saying.

 

[heusdens]

So you mean that by your definition, if God exists, then he exists within the universe? Then you say that the universe is just a thought? Then you go on to reiterate that you think the definition of the universe includes everything including God. I don't agree that God exists within the universe because I go by the cannonical defintion of the universe. My definition of the universe is all of space-time and all of matter-energy contained inside, along with the four fundamental forces. The definition of God that I go by is a being of infinite knowledge and understanding that doesn't exist in space-time, and isn't made from matter-energy, and perceives all the events within the universe from all points in the universe at all angles of view at all periods of time. You can think of God as the "highest dimensional being possible", able to see the whole picture at once because he doesn't soley exist within the picture alone. So by my definitions, God can't exist soley within the universe alone, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. It seems you have different definitions, and that is our problem here, that's all. If only you could accept that this is the problem...

Nope.

All what I wanted to make clear that is that both God and Universe (as All of existence, all matter in all space and time) are merely subjective notions, and have no objective relations.

I was not stating God exist within the Universe, since that it simply not how God is defined.

Your definition of God as not being in spacetime (which is: no dimension at all) and at the same time in the highest dimension seems to me a contradiction in terms.
How does God 'perceive' anything, if God is non-material and has no sense-organs?

Since I assume you acknowledge to the idea that God supposedly created the universe, of what was God thinking or conscious before that, and how does 'thinking' or 'creating' mean anything, if they involve no time, no matter and no space?

Fact is that your God can not be objectively defined, since God is not an object nor has an object. It's only place is in the mind, and nowhere else.

I'm sorry if I don't appease your concept of reality, but then again I must in some way, because you've dreamed me into existence anyway. So think about it, you put me here to tell you these things, so that means that your higher self could see that you would need help because you'd get stuck in a rut. Maybe you should trust yourself and consider what I'm saying.

I think it was your dream, not mine.

I'm sorry to say, but I can not make any sense of what you say.

And I'm in no need of help.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

eh, I just figured you're keen on solipsism.

I don't think of everything as material, so it makes sense to me. I don't expect you to understand my definitions. I agree that God can only be defined subjectively. Of course, his absolute definition isn't knowable with certainty to us if he absolutely exists. Then again, many people can agree on the same definition too, just like many people can agree on a verdict in a court, but this is a case where there will always be a difference of opinion throughout the world. The definition of the universe seems to be on more scientific ground to me though, so I'm betting that there is less debate over this definition, and quite possibly much more people go by the same definition in comparison with the definition of God.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I'm interested in how you make sense of things Heusdens. It seems to me that you separate things between the mind and the physical world. I must ask, what is more "real" to you? the physical world, or the world of the mind?

 

[Evo]

I have to ask why people keep referring to a single god. Monotheism is relatively new in the human timeline. What makes you think that there could only be a single god? If a "god" created the universe, what makes you think it's still in existence? Maybe the effort to create the universe killed it.

Who has proof that there is a single god as opposed to the majority of religions citing multiple gods?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You know better then that mr. Johny trigonometry.

It is just by definition the case that there is nothing 'outside' the universe , since that is already included in 'universe'.

Universe is an abstract concept of thought, which by definition includes everything. For that reason, there is nothing outside the universe. And for that same reason, outside of our mind, this concept does not exist in reality, it is forever empiracally unknowable, since it has no objective existence.

Okay, there's a couple things you say that confuse me. First of all, you state this definition of the universe, but don't explicitly say that it is strictly your definition, which implies that it is an objective definition, especially when you put the words "by definition" in boldface. This appears as a a logical argument at first, which is deceiving. Then you make another claim: "the universe is an abstract concept of thought". I'm just not sure what you mean by this, because can't one argue that all words are abstract concepts of thought? Regardless, I don't see how if it is merely just 'an abstract concept of thought', then one can conclude that nothing is 'outside' of it. I don't follow the logic there, why does one dictate the next?

Secondly, you say that due to the deceivingly objective definition of the universe that you propose, the universe is 'outside of our minds' too. Well I just got to ask, how can you argue that something is 'outside of our minds' when you know what that something is. It's like saying that we can't know what a triangle is. When you state what it is in your refutation of our knowledge of it, you nullify your argument. Similarly, how is a triangle non-objective knowledge? Because it is 'an abstract concept of thought'?

Then in your reply, you change your appearance in the debate of this subject. What I mean is, you say this:

All what I wanted to make clear that is that both God and Universe (as All of existence, all matter in all space and time) are merely subjective notions, and have no objective relations.

I was not stating God exist within the Universe, since that it simply not how God is defined.

Which looks to me that you're now arguing something else that is similar, but not the same as what you were arguing above. On the one hand, I agree with this quote (although it is a different argument as before), and on the other I disagree. Certainly, we can all know what a triangle is objectively as easily as we can know what a pencil is. Neither the pencil or the tiangle have to exist in front of our eyes (physically) in order for us to know what they are. Likewise we know what grass is, and we don't have to be in its physical presence to know what we're talking about. These are just the words that we english speaking humans (you and I) connotate with these "things" wether they are 'abstract concepts of thought' or not. Surely, words work because we can communicate thoughts by their use because we have agreed on a common ground on which to relate concepts. Surely you know what I'm talking about when I say the word grass, although you may have a different image in your mind as to what it "looks" like, but you know what I'm referring to. Likewise, you know what I'm talking about when I say the word God, although you may have a different "image", or "understanding" or "definition" in your mind than what I have. Do you see what I'm saying here? There is a level upon which we both have complete knowledge, and it allows us to communicate thoughts, although we both may interpret those arrangements of words in our own ways as we relate them with our own experiences. So, surely you know what I'm referring to when I say the word universe, even though you may go by a different--more in depth--definition. So there is a level on which we know objectively, and there is a level on which we can only know subjectively. Our repretoire of 'abstract concepts of thought' aren't mutually exclusive, but there is some overlaping. Speaking in the language of sets, our sets have an intersection where we both share objective relations. Bringing this back to the ideas of subjective, objective, and absolute truth, we might look at those 'concepts' or 'relations' or 'ideas' or 'definitions' which are common to all sets as objective truths. It goes without saying that the amount of subjective truths are much larger for each set. The absolute truth is still an undefined set in this exploration as far as I understand, and perhaps we could say that objective truth is a subset of it, but I'm not sure about that.

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I don't fully agree with you as I did above, and maybe I understand what you did too, if it was anything like what I just did.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I have to ask why people keep referring to a single god. Monotheism is relatively new in the human timeline. What makes you think that there could only be a single god? If a "god" created the universe, what makes you think it's still in existence? Maybe the effort to create the universe killed it.

Who has proof that there is a single god as opposed to the majority of religions citing multiple gods?

My apologies for not being politically correct.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual. When a group of people agree on something we can say that this constitutes an 'objective truth', BUT ONLY FOR THAT GROUP. Other groups may have other objective truths.

The group called Scientists may say that their objective truth has been experimentally proven but quantum theory seems to be indicating that the experiments scientists choose to perform reflect "who they are" (ie: subjective truth). Also, Rade's quote above ( SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X]) also reflects the shaky nature of scientific objective "truth". Science, like religion (and most adults for that matter) has a hard time saying "I don't know". Fully realising and accepting that "I don't know" (rather than groping desperately around in the dark for some kind of certainty, be it religious or scientific) may be the ultimate objective truth.
As for "absolute truth", if it exists I have a feeling it may well be something we cannot communicate, not even to ourselves.
(or not )

I think this is a very good way to summerize things. I'd have to say that science can be fully objective. The reason is becauce probabilities are objectively true, since they are experimentally verified. If you flip a coin enough, it truly doesn't matter what anybody thinks will happen, since the outcome after many tosses is experimentally verifiable to be in accord with science's probability distribution. Science predicts objective things, wether they are probability distributions or things more specific. As far as the principle that the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames, it has been experimentally verified time and again. I think I see what you're getting at though. The idea that if you keep seing black crows, is it okay to conclude that all crows are black? Well, maybe if we are careful about the use of science, then we'd not conclude that, and we'd simply keep tabs of all the colors of crows that we find, and eventually we'd have an objectively true probability that we could work with.

 

[heusdens]

I'm interested in how you make sense of things Heusdens. It seems to me that you separate things between the mind and the physical world. I must ask, what is more "real" to you? the physical world, or the world of the mind?

What do you mean with "more real"?

The world can be known with the mind only, yet on the other hand this does not infer that the mind itself is primary.

So, basically the world in primary sense is just material, and consciousness is secondary. The phenomena of consciousness can be satisfactory explained in terms of matter (it is just a different perspective on the same phenomena) and the material world existed long before there were living organisisms and consciouss living beings.

I don't see any problem with this worldview.

 

[heusdens]

Okay, there's a couple things you say that confuse me. First of all, you state this definition of the universe, but don't explicitly say that it is strictly your definition, which implies that it is an objective definition, especially when you put the words "by definition" in boldface. This appears as a a logical argument at first, which is deceiving. Then you make another claim: "the universe is an abstract concept of thought". I'm just not sure what you mean by this, because can't one argue that all words are abstract concepts of thought? Regardless, I don't see how if it is merely just 'an abstract concept of thought', then one can conclude that nothing is 'outside' of it. I don't follow the logic there, why does one dictate the next?

The point is there are various definitions, and to avoid the confusion, I made explicit what definition of the concept universe I had in mind.

About abstract concepts, and reality: see it like this. Let us in imagination take a concept of a material object that is handy to poor liquids in for drinking. Now this is a concept as such, and has as yet no bearing on anything that exists in reality.
But on further inspection of reality itself, we can check not only that this concept can relate to something in reality, but in fact does: my coffee cup!

But I could also have thought of something - a concept - that could not and does not exist in reality. A square circle for instance. It's definition defies it's existence, assuming ordinary space metrics.

Now the universe is just that sort of concept. Although plausible at first (just a constructing of a whole from parts, but then taking that to the maxim) and using the inference that if we construct in mind a whole out of parts that are known to exist, we normaly arive at something that can exist.
Yet in the maxim case (building a concept for all of reality) is misses some important aspect for it to be something real: objective reality!

See my posts on how I arrive at that conclusion.

Secondly, you say that due to the deceivingly objective definition of the universe that you propose, the universe is 'outside of our minds' too.

No. Objective reality is. That is: there are objective relations that exist and that we can test for. And although there exists no limit on how far (in space, time, diversity, relations, etc) this objective reality can go, we can never arrive at a concept of reality as a whole (all of objective reality) which also exists in objective reality. This is only so as far as this whole has a reality outside itself, but which it can not have, for then it would not be the maxim of objective reality.

In other words, this means: Whatever we try we can not arrive at a concept of all of objective reality (as objective reality) without contradiction.

Well I just got to ask, how can you argue that something is 'outside of our minds' when you know what that something is.

I know what (the concept of) raining is. It is now raining outside.

I see no problems with this.

It is meant to say that some concept or idea or image I have in mind (in thought) is a reflection of something that exists outside of the mind, in objective reality.

It's like saying that we can't know what a triangle is. When you state what it is in your refutation of our knowledge of it, you nullify your argument. Similarly, how is a triangle non-objective knowledge? Because it is 'an abstract concept of thought'?

A triangle in thought is an ideal form, but it does reflect the reality of objects outside of our mind. We merely have to look at three distinct points and see a triangle. You can find triangular shaped forms almost everywhere.

Which looks to me that you're now arguing something else that is similar, but not the same as what you were arguing above. On the one hand, I agree with this quote (although it is a different argument as before), and on the other I disagree. Certainly, we can all know what a triangle is objectively as easily as we can know what a pencil is. Neither the pencil or the tiangle have to exist in front of our eyes (physically) in order for us to know what they are. Likewise we know what grass is, and we don't have to be in its physical presence to know what we're talking about. These are just the words that we english speaking humans (you and I) connotate with these "things" wether they are 'abstract concepts of thought' or not. Surely, words work because we can communicate thoughts by their use because we have agreed on a common ground on which to relate concepts. Surely you know what I'm talking about when I say the word grass, although you may have a different image in your mind as to what it "looks" like, but you know what I'm referring to. Likewise, you know what I'm talking about when I say the word God, although you may have a different "image", or "understanding" or "definition" in your mind than what I have. Do you see what I'm saying here? There is a level upon which we both have complete knowledge, and it allows us to communicate thoughts, although we both may interpret those arrangements of words in our own ways as we relate them with our own experiences. So, surely you know what I'm referring to when I say the word universe, even though you may go by a different--more in depth--definition. So there is a level on which we know objectively, and there is a level on which we can only know subjectively. Our repretoire of 'abstract concepts of thought' aren't mutually exclusive, but there is some overlaping. Speaking in the language of sets, our sets have an intersection where we both share objective relations. Bringing this back to the ideas of subjective, objective, and absolute truth, we might look at those 'concepts' or 'relations' or 'ideas' or 'definitions' which are common to all sets as objective truths. It goes without saying that the amount of subjective truths are much larger for each set. The absolute truth is still an undefined set in this exploration as far as I understand, and perhaps we could say that objective truth is a subset of it, but I'm not sure about that.

I wasn't talking about absolute truth, I think that absolute truth are only relative, or can only be known in a relative way. But that is a whole different topic on it's own.

By the way have you read anything of Hegel?

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I don't fully agree with you as I did above, and maybe I understand what you did too, if it was anything like what I just did.

ok.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Thats not a whole different topic. That is what we're talking about here. I agree that absolute truths can only be knowable subjetively. The only problem is that the subjetive perspective of absolute truth can't be fully conveyed to other people, and can't be experimentally verified, so we have no way to find out who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

What do you mean with "more real"?

The world can be known with the mind only, yet on the other hand this does not infer that the mind itself is primary.

So, basically the world in primary sense is just material, and consciousness is secondary. The phenomena of consciousness can be satisfactory explained in terms of matter (it is just a different perspective on the same phenomena) and the material world existed long before there were living organisisms and consciouss living beings.

I don't see any problem with this worldview.

But if a tree falls in the woods... What I mean is that if there were a universe around, and nobody was there to consciously perceive it, then would it still exist? Would it still be real? What you explained is that it would am I right? Since it doesn't matter if we're conscious of it or not, it is still real, even if we're in this universe and not in that one. Do you define things to be real if they are made of matter and take up space and time?

 

[heusdens]

But if a tree falls in the woods... What I mean is that if there were a universe around, and nobody was there to consciously perceive it, then would it still exist? Would it still be real? What you explained is that it would am I right? Since it doesn't matter if we're conscious of it or not, it is still real, even if we're in this universe and not in that one. Do you define things to be real if they are made of matter and take up space and time?

Your question is if there is a sound of a falling tree when nobody is around (no consciouss observer) to hear it?

Yes, because the sound waves themselves are as real as the tree that fell.

All of reality is composed of matter in motion in space and time, and we have in principle no other means to state anything about reality.

[ the only addition to that is the abstract reality of mathematical truths, and so forth which strictly speaking are not physical themselves ]

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Your question is if there is a sound of a falling tree when nobody is around (no consciouss observer) to hear it?

Yes, because the sound waves themselves are as real as the tree that fell.

All of reality is composed of matter in motion in space and time, and we have in principle no other means to state anything about reality.

[ the only addition to that is the abstract reality of mathematical truths, and so forth which strictly speaking are not physical themselves ]

So you would agree that a tree would make noise, hence, the noise is real, and so is the tree no doubt. And if there were nobody at all in this universe, then these things would still be real. So then it wouldn't matter if one were conscious of this universe or not, it would still be real. Suppose we existed in an alternate universe, and nobody existed in this one, then you'd say that this one is still real, even though we're unable to consciously perceive it since we dwell in an alternate universe. To us then, an alternate universe is just 'an abstract concept of thought', but in this case the abstract concept is that of something real.

In connection to this quote: "all of reality is composed of matter ..." I have to ask that if you feel joy, then how can you describe it as matter in motion and what not, since your feeling of joy in this case is real to you. If you get a creepy feeling about someone, how is that described as matter in motion in your perspective. Don't you think that it can get very complicated thinking of these subjective experiences as matter in motion? Subjective experiences are part of reality to me, to deny them is to deny part of the reality I perceive, so to me, reality is more than just physical. Things that are real aren't only physical, but also non-physical. Thoughts, emotions, mathematical expressions, they are all part of reality. The idea of alternate universes are also part of what we (as minds) experience (hence a part of reality), and in the same fashion, the concept/idea of a triangle, or the image you have of a grassy field. So from what I'm sayng, I extrapolate that reality can be categorized among others as physical reality, emotive reality, imaginative/conceptual reality, and probably many others. These are all some of the things we experience subjectively, and so they are all combined into subjective reality. So, as we all can't deny, we are aware of our five senses, but also we're aware of emotions and concepts, and maybe more things that don't come to mind right now. The sum total of all the things we experience should be considered reality, otherwise if we leave out something, we aren't being scientific. Since we all have different experiences, we must conclude that we all perceive reality in different ways, but we all share some common things.

Bringing this back to the main topic once again, we each have more of a repretoire of subjective experiences rather than objective, because the commonalities (objectivity) between many or all subjective experiences (truths) are few and far between. How do you feel about this last idea, is it on decent grounds? Can you accept it as a shared truth between you and I?

So, what is more real to you, what you experience as physical, or what you experience as non-physical? Put it this way, I have a crush on a girl in one of my classes. When her and I speak, I experience things I can't describe physically. In physical reality, you just see two people talking, nothing very exciting, but if you could see what was going on beyond that, you'd see a whole lot more interesting and exciting things going on. To me, only looking at physical reality severely limits one's understanding. To me, physical reality is just a small "shadow" of what is really going on, and somehow our minds are tied into a deeper reality beyond the physical--one that isn't limited by space-time or matter-energy.

 

[heusdens]

So you would agree that a tree would make noise, hence, the noise is real, and so is the tree no doubt. And if there were nobody at all in this universe, then these things would still be real. So then it wouldn't matter if one were conscious of this universe or not, it would still be real. Suppose we existed in an alternate universe, and nobody existed in this one, then you'd say that this one is still real, even though we're unable to consciously perceive it since we dwell in an alternate universe. To us then, an alternate universe is just 'an abstract concept of thought', but in this case the abstract concept is that of something real.

In connection to this quote: "all of reality is composed of matter ..." I have to ask that if you feel joy, then how can you describe it as matter in motion and what not, since your feeling of joy in this case is real to you. If you get a creepy feeling about someone, how is that described as matter in motion in your perspective. Don't you think that it can get very complicated thinking of these subjective experiences as matter in motion? Subjective experiences are part of reality to me, to deny them is to deny part of the reality I perceive, so to me, reality is more than just physical. Things that are real aren't only physical, but also non-physical. Thoughts, emotions, mathematical expressions, they are all part of reality. The idea of alternate universes are also part of what we (as minds) experience (hence a part of reality), and in the same fashion, the concept/idea of a triangle, or the image you have of a grassy field. So from what I'm sayng, I extrapolate that reality can be categorized among others as physical reality, emotive reality, imaginative/conceptual reality, and probably many others. These are all some of the things we experience subjectively, and so they are all combined into subjective reality. So, as we all can't deny, we are aware of our five senses, but also we're aware of emotions and concepts, and maybe more things that don't come to mind right now. The sum total of all the things we experience should be considered reality, otherwise if we leave out something, we aren't being scientific. Since we all have different experiences, we must conclude that we all perceive reality in different ways, but we all share some common things.

Bringing this back to the main topic once again, we each have more of a repretoire of subjective experiences rather than objective, because the commonalities (objectivity) between many or all subjective experiences (truths) are few and far between. How do you feel about this last idea, is it on decent grounds? Can you accept it as a shared truth between you and I?

So, what is more real to you, what you experience as physical, or what you experience as non-physical? Put it this way, I have a crush on a girl in one of my classes. When her and I speak, I experience things I can't describe physically. In physical reality, you just see two people talking, nothing very exciting, but if you could see what was going on beyond that, you'd see a whole lot more interesting and exciting things going on. To me, only looking at physical reality severely limits one's understanding. To me, physical reality is just a small "shadow" of what is really going on, and somehow our minds are tied into a deeper reality beyond the physical--one that isn't limited by space-time or matter-energy.

I didn't say there was noise, I said there were sound waves.

And different universes (in the sense of inflationary cosmology) would too have a reality on their own. Same as galaxies out of the observational horizon.

That we perceive of reality in a subjective way doesn't mean there is an objective world.
Subjective feelings and emotions are part of our human nature, formed and shaped by evolution. They have a material explenation in the form of our bio-chemical composition.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I didn't say there was noise, I said there were sound waves.

And different universes (in the sense of inflationary cosmology) would too have a reality on their own. Same as galaxies out of the observational horizon.

That we perceive of reality in a subjective way doesn't mean there is an objective world.
Subjective feelings and emotions are part of our human nature, formed and shaped by evolution. They have a material explenation in the form of our bio-chemical composition.

Oh come on. You're nitpicking between what sound waves are and what noise is. Listen to yourself.

What do you mean? Are you now proposing that there is no objective world? Or did you interpret what I'm saying incorrectly?

I said that we can define objectivity as those commonalities between subjective experiences.

If we all agree to use the same words/definitions to describe these commonalities, then we can speak of things in objective terms, since we all can know what we're talking about.

Besides, if you're really now trying to say that there might not be an objective world, then you're contradicting yourself. The reason is because you say that nobody needs to be conscious of something (subjectively perceive it) in order for it to be real, then the only way it can be real is if its existence is objective, i.e. it doesn't need to subjectively exist to be real.

When you say that feelings are part of our bio-chemical nature, you may be right. Regardless, things will get very complicated if you look at things this way, since you're now forced to search for what stimulates the release of chemicals into the bloodstream. How do you answer this? If you don't consider what the mind is experiencing, you may never understand. So you can't simply view everything as physical, since you're leaving out a big portion of reality as one perceives it. Even so, then you have to consider what thoughts are in terms of physical motion of particles in space-time, since this is also a part of the subjective experience. To me, it is much easier to consider that reality as one perceives it isn't only composed of physical interactions, but also of non-physical interactions, such as thoughts and perhaps feelings.

 

[heusdens]

Oh come on. You're nitpicking between what sound waves are and what noise is. Listen to yourself.

There is a distinction between hearing of a sound and soundwaves.

What do you mean? Are you now proposing that there is no objective world? Or did you interpret what I'm saying incorrectly?

Quite the contrary. I said there ARE objective relations, which is what the world IS.
Only when you take the maxim of objective relations (in the ultimate sense, including all objective relations) you end up with a concept that has no more objective meaning (since it has nothing strictly outside, apart and independent of it).

I said that we can define objectivity as those commonalities between subjective experiences.

Objectivity is based on objective relations in the real world.
Which we can all agree on.

If we all agree to use the same words/definitions to describe these commonalities, then we can speak of things in objective terms, since we all can know what we're talking about.

Besides, if you're really now trying to say that there might not be an objective world, then you're contradicting yourself.

Which I didn't say.

The reason is because you say that nobody needs to be conscious of something (subjectively perceive it) in order for it to be real, then the only way it can be real is if its existence is objective, i.e. it doesn't need to subjectively exist to be real.

Quite right. The sun and Earth were already there before there was subjective experience (in human consciousness).

Agree?

When you say that feelings are part of our bio-chemical nature, you may be right. Regardless, things will get very complicated if you look at things this way, since you're now forced to search for what stimulates the release of chemicals into the bloodstream. How do you answer this? If you don't consider what the mind is experiencing, you may never understand. So you can't simply view everything as physical, since you're leaving out a big portion of reality as one perceives it. Even so, then you have to consider what thoughts are in terms of physical motion of particles in space-time, since this is also a part of the subjective experience. To me, it is much easier to consider that reality as one perceives it isn't only composed of physical interactions, but also of non-physical interactions, such as thoughts and perhaps feelings.

Now you are telling me that when I have a cup, which is a material form, we also have the space it defines as something separate of it.

That is only a perception, but the matter itself is already enough to define the cup, you don't need to have a dualistic approach.

That is what you do.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You did it again, you made a statement, then I responded, and then you said that you didn't mean what you said earlier. This isn't very productive, because I don't really know what you're trying to argue, since you keep switching around on me.

but still, I'll continue to play your game, now I'll address your idea of "taking objectivity to its maxim"So, if the universe exists, and nobody is there to perceive it, then there is no way to define it objectively, because there is nothing outside of it (such as a perception of it, ie. nothing apart or independant of it), is that what you mean by taking something to its maxim?

Then is this a situation where there are no objective relations?
So then you'd say that something doesn't have to be defined for it to be real, because you agree that this universe is real, but yet it has no way to relate with anything separate from it.

It goes without saying that we humans (beings within this universe) know what we're referring to when we speak of the universe. As I said earlier, there is a level upon which we know what the universe is, and there is a level on which we don't. Since you know what I'm referring to when I say "universe" you know the common definition of it that we use in common language (the objective definition), but you have a subjective definition of much greater depth in your repertoire. So, in this case, since there is a basic definition of the universe, the universe must not be the maxim of objectivity that you speak of. In fact, since you say that the maxim of objectivity can't be defined, then we can't ever put our finger on what it is, so we will never have a word for it.

 

[heusdens]

You did it again, you made a statement, then I responded, and then you said that you didn't mean what you said earlier. This isn't very productive, because I don't really know what you're trying to argue, since you keep switching around on me.

but still, I'll continue to play your game, now I'll address your idea of "taking objectivity to its maxim"


So, if the universe exists, and nobody is there to perceive it, then there is no way to define it objectively, because there is nothing outside of it (such as a perception of it, ie. nothing apart or independant of it), is that what you mean by taking something to its maxim?

Then is this a situation where there are no objective relations?
So then you'd say that something doesn't have to be defined for it to be real, because you agree that this universe is real, but yet it has no way to relate with anything separate from it.

It goes without saying that we humans (beings within this universe) know what we're referring to when we speak of the universe. As I said earlier, there is a level upon which we know what the universe is, and there is a level on which we don't. Since you know what I'm referring to when I say "universe" you know the common definition of it that we use in common language (the objective definition), but you have a subjective definition of much greater depth in your repertoire. So, in this case, since there is a basic definition of the universe, the universe must not be the maxim of objectivity that you speak of. In fact, since you say that the maxim of objectivity can't be defined, then we can't ever put our finger on what it is, so we will never have a word for it.

It is not the problem that it can not be defined, since we clearly just did that. You know what concept I was talking about.

Just that it was a reasonable conclusion to say that this 'entity' we call 'Universe' is not and can not be objectively related itself, which conclusion we took from it's definition (since it strictly does not have something outside or apart and independent of itself).

On the other hand, we merely think in lines of that a combination of objects, we know that themselves exist, just forms a new object (the composition of those elementary objects it is made of) which we can argue for, must have existence itself.

What I try to explain is that there are reasonable arguments to give for both positions.

I reasoned for one part (the first part) of the conclusion (the universe is not objectively related itself, therefore not objectively existent), but there is of course also another side to it (the universe consists of objects in existence, so it must have existence itself).

So there is not a unique way of looking at this.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

It is not the problem that it can not be defined, since we clearly just did that. You know what concept I was talking about.

Just that it was a reasonable conclusion to say that this 'entity' we call 'Universe' is not and can not be objectively related itself, which conclusion we took from it's definition (since it strictly does not have something outside or apart and independent of itself).

On the other hand, we merely think in lines of that a combination of objects, we know that themselves exist, just forms a new object (the composition of those elementary objects it is made of) which we can argue for, must have existence itself.

What I try to explain is that there are reasonable arguments to give for both positions.

I reasoned for one part (the first part) of the conclusion (the universe is not objectively related itself, therefore not objectively existent), but there is of course also another side to it (the universe consists of objects in existence, so it must have existence itself).

So there is not a unique way of looking at this.

One can look at things this way, I don't doubt that. Remember that I didn't agree that God is part of the universe though (or consciousness either, although I kind of attribute the origin of consciousness to God anyway), so I don't think that way. So in my perspective, God and the universe (or I should say, reality as we perceive it) aren't part of something greater. Aside from our differences in how we perceive the universe (our subjective truths), I think we can relate this idea of "objectivity to its maxim" thing to the different proposed types of truth. This will require a more descript way to define the property of objectivity, or objective truth... I think. So, I don't have much time right now to start, but how would you define it if you'd be so kind?

 

[heusdens]

One can look at things this way, I don't doubt that. Remember that I didn't agree that God is part of the universe though (or consciousness either, although I kind of attribute the origin of consciousness to God anyway), so I don't think that way. So in my perspective, God and the universe (or I should say, reality as we perceive it) aren't part of something greater. Aside from our differences in how we perceive the universe (our subjective truths), I think we can relate this idea of "objectivity to its maxim" thing to the different proposed types of truth. This will require a more descript way to define the property of objectivity, or objective truth... I think. So, I don't have much time right now to start, but how would you define it if you'd be so kind?

Objectivity is based on the existence of objective relations.

What means is that the invisible elf in my backyard which is indetectable by any means, doesn't exist.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I would say that the invisible elf does exist in your reality, since you can perceive it, but since you don't share a common experience with other people, then it's not objectively true. So here lies another example of subjective vs. objective truth in my perspective. It's not that the elf doesn't exist, because it exists on the same level of the image of a grassy field exists in our subjective experiences (imagination being part of our subjective experience).

In short, I define objectivity as commonly perceived things among many people. I think it's a good way to define objectivity since I don't use the word "objective" in the definition. So tieing this with your definition, I can say that the objective relations are the different perceptions of many people.

 

[heusdens]

So you would agree that a tree would make noise, hence, the noise is real, and so is the tree no doubt. And if there were nobody at all in this universe, then these things would still be real. So then it wouldn't matter if one were conscious of this universe or not, it would still be real. Suppose we existed in an alternate universe, and nobody existed in this one, then you'd say that this one is still real, even though we're unable to consciously perceive it since we dwell in an alternate universe. To us then, an alternate universe is just 'an abstract concept of thought', but in this case the abstract concept is that of something real.

An alternative universe (or neigbouring universe) could be quite real in the same sense as an alternative planet (not yet detected either directly or indirectly) could be real. Both are not in any way detectable.

If inflation cosmology theory is true, such alternative universes are part of reality.

 

[heusdens]

I would say that the invisible elf does exist in your reality, since you can perceive it, but since you don't share a common experience with other people, then it's not objectively true. So here lies another example of subjective vs. objective truth in my perspective. It's not that the elf doesn't exist, because it exists on the same level of the image of a grassy field exists in our subjective experiences (imagination being part of our subjective experience).

In short, I define objectivity as commonly perceived things among many people. I think it's a good way to define objectivity since I don't use the word "objective" in the definition. So tieing this with your definition, I can say that the objective relations are the different perceptions of many people.

The problem with your point of view that if a group of people have some same experience (for instance they all take the same drug and experience the same hallucination) then that is something objective.

It need to be detectable outside apart from and indepedent of mind to be objective.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The problem with your point of view that if a group of people have some same experience (for instance they all take the same drug and experience the same hallucination) then that is something objective.

It need to be detectable outside apart from and indepedent of mind to be objective.

But there are people who don't take the drug, and don't experience the hallucination. So it may be objectively true to the group that did take the drug, it's not to the group composed of people who did and also people who didn't. Besides, this event would be extremely unlikely.

Perception must play a crucial role though, because when you say "detectable" what do you mean besides "able to be noted by another person"? What is detectable independant of the mind? Do you mean that something objectively true must be able to interact within space-time, and matter-energy? Is 1+1=2 "detectable" independant of a mind to verify it? Since you understand the definitions of math and have accepted to use them because you believe in the reasons for applying logic in this form, you know that 1+1=2 is an objective truth to anyone else who agrees with the same defitions of math, so there is no way to circumvent the correlation with perception and objective truth in this example. You're forced to agree that perception plays a part in defining something objectively, or else you must have at least two different definitions of objectivity.

This is the reason why we must define something objective as the shared perceptions of different people. Otherwise we'd have trouble knowing when to use which definition of objectivity. It is much easier to work with one definition that can apply to anything is it not?

 

[heusdens]

I would say that mathematical truths are abstracts from physical reality.
Place two apples on the table. Add two apples. Count how many apples are there on the table. The mathematical abstract comes out: 2+2=4.

Our physical reality is like that, that is how "fixed" objects seem to behave.
Athough not all objects do that. When counting clouds, it might come true that 1+1=1 as clouds can merge themselves.
Our math is not based on counting clouds but on counting more fixed objects which are stable separate entities at least long enough to develop such mathematical truths.

 

[octelcogopod]

I'd like to point out a couple assumptions I see;

1. The assumption that perception / consciousness plays a role in the existence of reality and

2. That this perception tells us anything about reality aside from the conscious meaning the subject applies to it.

Johnny:
When you says that perception plays a crucial role in defining objective existence, all you're saying is that your brain has come to the conclusion that to define its perception of objective, you must have several observers.
Your brain does this because it has memories of perceiving what it sees as reality, and what it has defined as reality, and that's all it does.
Whether or not your perception tells you anything about reality is up for debate I think. Although it certainly tells you something about your perception.
Ultimately being conscious we can never perceive all of reality, because like us, only reality knows "what it's like" to be reality.

In this sense the only way to call something objective is to assume that other people exist, assume that our perceptions are somewhat the same, and then the brain will use its problem solving capabilities to create what we see everyday through science, art and so forth.

Yes a bit far out I know. >s

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I'd like to point out a couple assumptions I see;

1. The assumption that perception / consciousness plays a role in the existence of reality and

2. That this perception tells us anything about reality aside from the conscious meaning the subject applies to it.

Johnny:
When you says that perception plays a crucial role in defining objective existence, all you're saying is that your brain has come to the conclusion that to define its perception of objective, you must have several observers.
Your brain does this because it has memories of perceiving what it sees as reality, and what it has defined as reality, and that's all it does.
Whether or not your perception tells you anything about reality is up for debate I think. Although it certainly tells you something about your perception.
Ultimately being conscious we can never perceive all of reality, because like us, only reality knows "what it's like" to be reality.

In this sense the only way to call something objective is to assume that other people exist, assume that our perceptions are somewhat the same, and then the brain will use its problem solving capabilities to create what we see everyday through science, art and so forth.

Yes a bit far out I know. >s

I see we may go by different definitions of the brain and consciousness among others. Basically, my assumptions are in line with the copenhagen interpretation, the most accepted interpretation of QM among scientists. To go against mainstream science is fine, but let it be known that that is what you're doing. For example, if I ask you what objectively exists inside a particular high school gym, you can't conclude on anything without looking inside the gym. Sure you can conclude that it has a floor and walls, but what color are they? Is there a basketball under the bleachers, assuming there are bleachers? what about a jump rope on the floor? What about a candy wrapper? Basically, when there is no knowledge about objectivity, no conclusions should be made--hence the relationship with perception (knowledge) of something. If you make any objective conclusions about reality beyond what you can objectively verify, then you aren't being honest to other people. In other words, my assumption keeps me from making any extra assumptions, where in most cases their number would exceed the one I've made--the less assumptions the better. I'm not going to say that a universe can objectively exist without perceiving it, or God, or that our universe is infinite, or that our minds are material, or that everything is for that matter, etc. I don't agree that to conclude either way on those topcis and declare it as objective is a valid thing to do. If you conclude one way or another, then it is true only to you for those subjects, because your perception doesn't dictate objective reality, only subjective reality.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Ok, I take it that it is acceptable to define objectivity in the way I propose. Now I'll try to define what "objectivity at its maxim" is.

Objectivity at its maxim sounds a lot like the idea of absolute truth to me, since it implies knowledge of everything. Every particle's position at every moment in time and over all space. Since objectivity requires confirmation from many observers, then we'd need an infinite amount of observers everywhere in space and time throughout the universe, which all communicate with each other instantly, so that everyone can know every aspect of everything objectively and immedietly. Of course the observers can't be made out of matter, because for example, I don't know where all the particles are inside my head, or body for that matter. So all the observers must be infintecimal points, and they must also be able to see 360 degrees vertically and horizontally around them at once. Since they all must communicate instantly, they will know the percpetion of every other observer, and in essence, the infinitude of observers behaves as one mind. This mind would then know everything objectively, and requires that it is everywhere in space and time, and perceives everything that will and ever has happened all at once constantly, and constancy implies that time is irrelevent. Since this observer isn't made of matter, and doesn't perceive time, and has no boundaries of space, knowledge or understanding, (things not attributable to material things... beyond panpsychism) this observer is separate from the universe (when we say that the universe is space-time and the matter-energy contained within it). If we ask this mind anything, he/she/(now gender means nothing, but still we can think of him/her as a consciousness, so I don't want to call him/her an it) will be able to tell us the answer, but of course we can't know if we'd get one or not, how would you behave if you had all these attributes?. There is no way to understand what it would be like to be this maxim of objectivity. Well, this is pretty much all the attributes that God has, but of course my finite mind can't understand it all.

How would you define the "maxim of objectivity"?

 

[heusdens]

Ok, I take it that it is acceptable to define objectivity in the way I propose. Now I'll try to define what "objectivity at its maxim" is.

Objectivity at its maxim sounds a lot like the idea of absolute truth to me, since it implies knowledge of everything. Every particle's position at every moment in time and over all space. Since objectivity requires confirmation from many observers, then we'd need an infinite amount of observers everywhere in space and time throughout the universe, which all communicate with each other instantly, so that everyone can know every aspect of everything objectively and immedietly. Of course the observers can't be made out of matter, because for example, I don't know where all the particles are inside my head, or body for that matter. So all the observers must be infintecimal points, and they must also be able to see 360 degrees vertically and horizontally around them at once. Since they all must communicate instantly, they will know the percpetion of every other observer, and in essence, the infinitude of observers behaves as one mind. This mind would then know everything objectively, and requires that it is everywhere in space and time, and perceives everything that will and ever has happened all at once constantly, and constancy implies that time is irrelevent. Well, this is pretty much all the attributes that God has, but of course my finite mind can't understand it all.

What has the "maxim of objective existence" to do with mind?

If you built the concept of maxim of existence, and take it that it exists as a mind, then what is that mind consciouss of, since for it, there is nothing outside and apart of itself.

There is no way to be consciouss of something if there is nothing outside and apart and independent of you.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You didn't object with the change in your definition of objectivity that I proposed for a while, so I figured that you agreed. Have you ever meditated? It is a process that involves trying to ignore your five senses and all your thoughts. Some people call it looking inside yourself, and some say that there is much more to experience there than anywhere in space-time. Try it sometime and be patient, you might be surprized. You have to calm yourself down and quit thinking if you want to meditate, thinking is noise that will distract you from appreciating things as they are. In my experience, I've learned that it is better to be at peace with the unexplainable than to be frusterated with not being able to understand things. This whole thread is more food for thought, and I've greately enjoyed your participation and I thank you.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Perhaps the absolute truth can't be explained objectively. Perhaps God is the solipsist.

Beyond using the word perhaps, I think it is alright to justify the ideas of objective vs. subjective truth as being the two main components of truth of reality. While distinguishing between different truths in debates, we can understand each other better. Also, as a consequence of the application of these distinguished components of truth, we can understand that there is no burden of proof in subjective debates. Burden of proof only applies when debating objective things, because there is actually proof in those cases, where in subjective cases there is none. Therefore, in the debate of the existence of God, there is no burden of proof for either party, since nothing can be proven objectively. One can prove things to oneself, because it is a subjective topic, but one can't prove things to someone else for the same reason.

 

[mosassam]

Therefore, in the debate of the existence of God, there is no burden of proof for either party, since nothing can be proven objectively. One can prove things to oneself, because it is a subjective topic, but one can't prove things to someone else for the same reason.

The universe came out of the bum of a miniscule green goat. This is true. Fortunately "there is no burden of proof for either party, since nothing can be proven objectively". You must define God if you wish to bring it into the objective arena, otherwise God is just a miniscule green goat. If you wish to keep it as a subjective experience then remain silent and contemplate. (as opposed to 'Shut up and calculate').
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
If you can ask the right question then everything is inexplicable (unexplainable). This is the true beauty of Thought.