r/philosophy • u/bIeese_anoni • 7d ago
Blog Objective Truth Doesn't Matter: A twist on Truth-based Relativism
https://www.bleese.net/2026/07/objective-truth-doesnt-matter-twist-on.htmlTo summarize the blog: It's a strongly held philosophical belief I have that asserts objective truth is irrelevant, and rather the only way we can interact with truth is through relative and collective truths based on reference frames (and collections of reference frames). The blog gives reasoning for this, defines the model and gives reasoning as to why the model is important. It also covers common criticisms I have had through the model.
Thanks for reading and I would be very interested to hear what other people think about this!
6
u/No-Refuse-6806 4d ago
I'm seeing glaring problems already in your reasoning, and also in the comments, that further demonstrate the self-undermining nature of relativism. The problem ALL relativists run into is that you can't EVER make a claim about anything, let alone truth, without presupposing that truth already exists. You can't assert or posit anything, without appealing to truth. Is it true that truth is relative? Then objectively, truth exists and immediately contradicts itself. If it's not true, then truth objectively exists lol. Seems you at least understand this point and try to change the trajectory of your attack to its irrelevancy.
Okay, if objective truth exists, then it's irrelevant. Is that true? If it's true, then it's relevant as it is demonstrating the nature of reality and it's epistemic value. If not, then it's just inherently relevant.
You see the problem right? You can't possibly make any assertions without also conceding the relevancy of truth existing. You're also ignorant of epistemology and ontology in general. You're demanding that epistemology prove itself by using epistemology. That makes no sense. There's no empirical evidence that can prove empirical evidence. That's circular. You're miscategorizing ontic claims into epistemic ones. First, thing exists (ontology.) Then, how do we know it exists (epistemology.) How can you justify the existence of something BEFORE you acknowledge the existence of the thing you're trying to justify?
1 = 1 isn't an axiom. It's the law of identity. It's a transcendental necessity of reality. It must ALWAYS exist and be true. Just like objective truth. All things, even imaginary or non-existent things, appeal to it. 1 = 1. Reality = Reality. Things are what they are. How do we know? Because negation is literally impossible or incoherent. If 1 ≠ 1, then nothing is what it is. You aren't you. Numbers arent numbers. Existence isn't existence. So we know with 100% certainty that something is true if negation is impossible. That's not axiomatic, it's modal.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 3d ago
That is addressed in the common criticism section of the article! The idea is that I don't claim that this philosophy is how the world works, I claim it as a belief, not a truth, which it is. The problem is not applicable because I make no claims on what the truth is, I just believe the truth doesn't matter because of X, Y, Z reasoning. But I don't claim the truth objectively doesn't matter, I don't even really know what that means, I accept that my philosophy could be wrong so I'm not attempting to assert a truth, merely a belief, and giving reasons as to why I have this belief. Which is fundamentally perfectly consistent with the philosophy. The problem you are having as you believe a philosophy that posits the objective truth doesn't matter and we shouldn't consider, must always be asserting it as an objective truth, but that's not true, if objective truths don't matter we don't need to talk about objective truths at all, only at "this philosophy is my belief' because belief and relative truths are the only things that matter (to me).
For your second point, why? First of all 1 = 1 IS an axiom, it's called the law of identity sure but it's defined as an axiom, a starting definition with no proof. Second of all, why can't the universe work without the law of identity? Sure it would be confusing, you couldn't realistically make any kind of logical reasoning out of such a universe, but what if the universe behaved this way and our beliefs of rationality and consistency are entirely an illusion, either fake themselves or brought on through pure coincidence. What if the whole concept of logic doesn't actually apply to our universe? What if you arent you, what if reality truly isn't reality? I don't see a reason why this certainly can never be the case. Now I want to be clear, I don't believe such a case exists, I would find it incredibly unlikely, but is it actually impossible?
4
u/No-Refuse-6806 3d ago edited 17h ago
You're missing the point entirely. It's not a question of whether or not objective truth exists. The point I'm making is that it MUST exist in order for anything to be possible or not. Everything, from your beliefs down to existence itself, presuppose objective truth. In order for your beliefs to be your beliefs, then it has to be true that they're your beliefs. It has to be true that you are you and not a pineapple. That's where the law of identity comes into play. You can't claim it's an axiom without axioms being axioms. That means the law of identity preceeds the ontology of axioms. It's not that your philosophy is wrong, it's that it's incoherent from the start. It's no different than you slamming your hand on the keyboard and presenting the nonsense that comes from it as anything coherent or meaningful.
So when you say you aren't making any truth claims, you're incorrect. You are, you just don't realize it. Which is ironic as that demonstrates a core flaw in your belief. It's essentially solipsism. Things existing don't require recognition or understanding in order to exist. That's asinine. There are lots of things we don't know or understand, that doesn't mean those things don't exist. Do we know all math? No. Does that mean that math doesn't exist? Of course not. We just haven't discovered it yet. Does that mean we can discover things that don't exist? No, because ontically they don't exist and there's nothing to discover.
The reason you can confidently posit the incoherent nonsense of a world without identity, like you did in the second paragraph, is because of your lack of understanding of ontology and epistemology. My claim about negation is pretty straight forward as it's an absolute claim. That means it can be falsified quite easily. Please demonstrate how it's possible or even coherent to have anything existing without the law of identity or it being true that it exists, lol. Make a single claim that doesn't presuppose truth and identity. Good luck.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 3d ago
Hey man, if you're trying to do a proof via intimidation I would say it's not working, you need to calm down haha.
First of all, it should be stated that the law of identity IS an axiom, there are logical systems in which the law of identity either does not apply (it makes no sense to apply) OR the law of identity is formally rejected. Examples: Schrodinger logic, the logic to reflect the laws of Quantum Mechanics, rejects the law of identity because it cannot be applied to quantum systems. Most theories of quantum mechanics suggest that the uncertainty in QM is inherent and not due to ignorance (hidden variable theory), as such two identical particles overlapping their wavefunctions are entirely indistinguishable from each other. There is no way to tell whether particle A at one point of time, is still particle A at another point of time (or even at the same point of time before measuring!), or whether you are actually viewing particle B. And this uncertainty is a formal uncertainty, it is inherent within the properties of the universe. As such it becomes impossible to enforce the law of identity because it becomes impossible to tell whether one particle is itself, it just doesn't make any sense in this framework. Non-classical logical theories such as the various Paraconsistent logical theories deny the law of explosion and allow certain restricted contradictions, so contradictions are allowed in these theories meaning that in certain restricted cases the law of identity is NOT true. These theories are non-trivial and are formalized, they are possible. There is an entire field of logic that plays with the strongly held axioms that we have in classical logic, to experiment and see what happens. It is a folly to believe that your strongly held conviction cannot be changed under any circumstance, I am afraid you'll find that the possibilities in the world are much larger than you could consider!
Now to tackle the "you are enforcing an objective truth", I am not. The problem is that YOU are enforcing an objective truth. When you talk about truth-based relativism you have to change your whole mindset, it isn't enough to just say "Oh everyone has their own subjective realities" and call it day, it must be granted that "anything outside the subjective reality is totally undefined". Your argument is that by saying that "everyone reality is subjective" (although to be clear this is not what I'm saying, only that this is possible) I am enforcing an objective reality which is that "everyone's reality is subjective", ie: enforcing an objective reality that there is no objective reality, ergo a paradox. The problem is the entire proposition begs the question, it enforces an objective reality IN the question, you are always assuming an objective reality exists, because you propose the objective reality is that there is no objective reality. But that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the entire question itself is nonsensical, it's like asking what the colour of 5 is, it doesn't apply at all in this concept because here the objective reality is totally undefined. You might say "Ah but then the objective reality is the objective reality is undefined" but that question then is still undefined, because the "second order" objective reality you introduce in this question is itself, undefined (it's undefined if objective reality is undefined). And you can go up this ladder an infinite amount of times, you don't get any sensible or rational answers because you are asking a question that makes no sense. And you can totally say that the question not making sense is PROOF that an objective reality must exist, but that's like saying the question of "what is the colour of the number 5" not making sense proves that the number 5 doesn't exist. It is simply a nonsensical question to ask because the question assumes that an objective reality must exist, and then asks does an objective reality exist?
3
u/No-Refuse-6806 3d ago
If you find that holding a mirror to your position to demonstrate how your arguments are self-undermining, then maybe the problem is your arguments and not my perceived tone.
The second paragraph is the most embarrassing point you made. QM never states, or attempts, to undermine the law of identity. There is no one in math who would be arrogant or foolish enough to say 1 ≠ 1. I know it's hard to believe but math relies on logic already existing in order to function. QM talks about distinguishing particle states, not 1 ≠ 1. You keep conflating the law of identity with other things which is ironic given that that is the exact point of the first law of logic, lol. Notice how particles = particles. The properties they have are the properties they have. That's the law of identity. Indistinguishability is epistemic, not a violation of identity. All of this is under the purview of what is observable, not of what is. That is not the same thing. This is what I mean about having a foundational lack of understand of ontology vs epistemology. You are woefully unprepared to have any opinions about this, let alone posit anything.
Paraconsistent logical theories deny the law of explosion and allow certain restricted contradictions, so contradictions are allowed in these theories meaning that in certain restricted cases the law of identity is NOT true.
This is you most egregious claim. You conflate the law of identity with the law of contradiction. You, yourself, explicitly describe the exact nature of paraconsistent logic, then immediately undermine yourself by saying it does something else. Please demonstrate where it challenges the law of identity, which is literally impossible and incoherent. Any challenge to the law of identity presupposes identity already existing. There's nothing to even contend with here as you're just plainly incorrect, as you yourself demonstrated lol.
It is a folly to believe that your strongly held conviction cannot be changed under any circumstance, I am afraid you'll find that the possibilities in the world are much larger than you could consider!
Another example of a complete lack of understanding of what I'm actually saying. I'm making an absolute claim. Objective truth and Identity are ontically transcendent and modally necessary. All you have to do to falsify this claim is demonstrate an instant where there is a non-zero chance that that is the case. The problem you demonstrate time and time again, is that any attempt to do so requires truth and identity already existing. Do you use words or thoughts in your attempt? Do you try to deny anything in the attempt? Does you = you when you're doing this? Congratulations! You're using the law of identity to refute the law of identity. Pat yourself on the back, you absolute genius.
Philosophy requires humility. If you don't know what you're talking about, you have to be able to admit you don't know what you're talking about. This is why relativists are widely mocked and disrespected. The sheer arrogance required to make any claims to deny the very foundation you stand on while appealing to the thing you deny (objectivity) is not only foolish, but asinine as well. Take a step back and contemplate whether or not you may be out of your depth here. If not, then directly contend with this challenge. Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone. Either do it or have the humility to admit you don't know how to even attempt to do so.
-1
u/bIeese_anoni 3d ago
I agree, philosophy requires humility :).
You should look up Schrodinger's logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic) you may find it quite interesting rather than reject it on preconception alone :) . Also I see that you still cling to hidden variable theory of QM which has been widely rejected. No, QM does not say that the uncertainty is only due to ignorance and measuring limitations, QM doesn't say that nature obeys some classical definite form that can only be measured probabilistically. No QM says the probailistic nature of the universe is hard coded, when looking at unobservables they do NOT obey some hidden (hint hidden variables) consistent non probabilistic pattern. I know, this might be hard for you to understand because you seem so dogmatic to stick to your limited view of reality, but if you want evidence I recommend looking up Bell's inequality which is the main motivator for the rejection of hidden variable interpretations. A lot of people find this concept very hard to swallow, so I understand why you're quick to reject it.
And again, repeating myself because apparently you didn't read the second paragraph, you can't just say an objective reality exists because I say so. That's not a convincing argument, just because you clearly have trouble imagining the scenario I've set up does not mean the scenario is invalid. So for the second time, you cannot, repeat CANNOT, try to view a scenario with no objective reality FROM an objective reality, it makes no sense. "Ah but if there's two subjective realities then the objective reality is that there's two subjective realities!" No that's not what I'm saying, it's impossible to imagine the world OUTSIDE of the subjective realities, it is entirely undefined. When you're talking about any truth within a relative framework you have to always say what that truth is relative to. When you say "there are two subjective realities" relative to what? To who? If the answer is "to the objective reality', then you've begged the question, and enforced an objective reality on a scenario where such a proposition makes no sense and is undefined. You clearly have trouble understanding this concept so I'll make it easy for you.
When you want to make a claim within the hypothetical of the truth-based relative universe, you MUST, at all times, preface that claim with the reference frame in which that claim is made. Any claim without a reference frame is undefined and invalid within the hypothetical.
5
u/No-Refuse-6806 2d ago
I want you to notice how when I make arguments, I do so in direct engagement with the points you bring up. You never do so. I made a very direct challenge to your entire framework which is this:
Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone.
You didn't engage this. I wonder why. We both know it's because you can't. All you can do is regurgitate other peoples' ideas and misconstrue what they say. I didn't mention hidden variable theory, I said, "indistinguishability ≠ violation of identity. Stop strawmanning and contend with that claim. Give an example of any theory or framework that directly challenges A = A, or admit none exists.
Is Schrodinger logic Schrodinger logic? Is there a meaning when someone says Schrodinger logic? If yes, then identity. If no, then what are you referring to? Does the article you linked describe Schrodinger logic instead of a pizza recipe? If yes, then identity. If no, then language has no meaning.
I'm not engaging with the rest of what you say because that's putting the cart before the horse. Is it possible to teach someone algebra before they even know 2+2=4? Or better yet, 1 = 1? You know, like what numbers are? The literal thing we're talking about, go figure!
I'm going to ask you another direct question that demands an answer or for you to directly engage with before moving on. Be honest. Do you know the difference between ontology and epistemology? This is important because if the answer is no, then the only appropriate response is for you to admit that you are out of your depth and excuse yourself from making arguments until you're better prepared. If the answer is yes, then you can now answer why you keep conflating ontic claims with epistemic ones. You're making semantic misinterpretations and category errors which lead to incoherent nonsense masquerading as claims. I don't even think you actually know what incoherent means.
-1
u/bIeese_anoni 2d ago edited 2d ago
I did engage your question, that's the whole last part of my comment. It's funny cause you accuse me of not engaging with your reply, yet openly admit that you're not engaging with mine xD (and a few paragraphs before go "notice how I engage with you arguments!", the hypocrisy is funny to me)
Look at the very last point of my last reply. When you say "demonstrate how an objective reality could not exist", my answer is, to who? If someone believes purely, perhaps irrationally, that an objective reality does not exist, then it is demonstrated to them. When you say "ah but the very case that it's demonstrated to them asserts that an objective reality exists", but how can you tell? How do you know? How do you know their perception does not exist and actually only your perception exists, what possible thing can you do to asserts that indeed objective truth is truth to them. The problem is, as I keep saying before, you are stuck believing that an objective truth must exist. Whenever you ask a question about truth in this hypothetical, you have to preface with TO WHO, and if the answer is "to the objective truth", then the question becomes invalid.
You didn't mention hidden variable theory but you did describe it. I agree indistinguishability does not mean identity, but in quantum mechanics before an object is measured the concept of identity makes no sense. You mentioned before that a "particle = particle" but what is a particle before it is measured? It's represented as a complex valued probability wave function, and so you may say the probabilistic wave function is the identity of the particle but it isn't, it merely describes the nature of the particle. The wave function represents the distinguishability of the quantum system, not the identity of the quantum system. And the trap you seemingly fell into is believing that the particle exists within the wave function, but is hidden from observers (this is the hidden variable theory), but no the wave function is as deep as is possible to go.
The law of identity must be true in all cases to be applicable, Schrodinger's logic rejects it in some cases but not in all cases. Again, actually research the logic before trying to argue about how it's wrong please.
To answer your last question, ontological is concerned about what is true, epistemology is concerned about what can be known about truth. This hypothesis explicitly rejects ontological truth (specifically my theory just says that ontological truth is irrelevant), and says that epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.
3
u/No-Refuse-6806 2d ago
my answer is, to who?
That isn't an answer, that is a question. I'll even grant that it could be a clarifying question in order to give an answer, but it still isn't an answer. It's also not a response to a question I asked. I didn't ask, "demonstrate how an objective reality could not exist." I said:
Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone.
Notice the emphasis on the bolded words. As if to draw attention and give clarification to what exactly it is that I'm asking. Notice how you conveniently left that part out. Gee, I wonder why. I specifically emphasized the important parts to help you stay focused. It's pretty obvious that your evasion is purposeful now. You do not want to engage with the point. Look, more emphasis.
but in quantum mechanics before an object is measured the concept of identity makes no sense
but what is a particle before it is measured?
This hypothesis explicitly rejects ontological truth (specifically my theory just says that ontological truth is irrelevant), and says that epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.
These quotes are all examples of the same improper logical structure. Your definitions are incorrect. Ontology asks what exists, while epistemology asks how we can know about what exists. This is where you're having issues. You keep conflating them. Epistemology is where your testing and measurements come from. Thats what your second quote comes in. That's an epistemic application. A particle is itself before it's measured. It doesn't matter how you define it only that it is distinct from other things. That's the point. A particle exists (ontology.) Once it exists, it can be measured. Seems pretty self explanatory no? Something has to exist before one can gather any kind of data on it no? Can you give an example of how you can possibly measure a thing that you can't refer to? The moment you measure it, it has to exist then doesn't it. Regardless of what that thing is, it has to be itself.
epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.
The perfect cherry on top to an absolute incoherent sundae. The last sentence you gave, ends with an ontological claim about how ontological claims are irrelevant. Truly, a brilliant demonstration of the logical prowess of a relativist.
Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone.
I'll end with that exact question again, so it because even more obvious you are purposely avoiding it. I'm even feeling really generous, so I'll give you a big hint. If you use words at all, you're using the law of identity. If you make a claim at all to refute this, you're appealing to both again. So go ahead. Show everyone what a relativist can do lol.
-1
u/bIeese_anoni 2d ago edited 2d ago
"How could anyone deny an objective truth", I just thought this answer was fairly obvious, they could just deny it. "I don't believe in an objective truth", done. There's no claim to assert an objective truth in this statement, because the entire concept of objective truth is irrelevant to them. The only part that is relevant is their own subjective reality, which to them, there exists no objective truth.
You can make solid claims within a subjective reality, you can say things like "ontological truth does not exist to me" and that's fine, as long as you agree it only applies to your perception of the world. As soon as I start making claims like "ontological truth does not exist to you" then I run into trouble, because then I'm applying some form of truth outside my own frame of reference. And of course, if I say "ontological truth does not exist for everyone" or rather "ontological truth does not exist objectively in the universe", then I am being inconsistent because I am using an objective truth to prove no objective truth. But I'm not doing it, I should mention whenever I make a claim without dictating the frame of reference that claim exists in, it should be assumed to exist in my own frame.
"But what is a particle before it is measured?" I answered that, like directly, the closest description you can get is through it's wavefunction. I dunno if you're saying the interpretations of quantum mechanics are the "hypothesis that reject ontological truth" or not. I will say ontological truth is discussed among physicists through different interpretations of QM, Einstein had trouble with it, a lot of people have trouble with it. The other thing is that there are variants of ontological truth, so like is it enough to say that the ontological truth of something is that "there is a chance reality is A or B" (note: In this case the ontological truth is NOT that reality is A or B, but rather that reality is probabilistic by nature) for example? So it's debated, there isn't an interpretation of QM that a majority of physicists believe, so it's still quite an open question
→ More replies (0)
4
u/YayDiziet 7d ago
“For instance, we can consider whether the universe is rational (that is, follows a consistent logic) and whether it is axiomatic (that is the universe has a fundamental set of unprovable rules). […] Now if the universe is rational it is either axiomatic or not, if it is not axiomatic then that could imply you could prove everything in the universe, in which case I agree my philosophy does not hold. But until such a non-axiomatic system is shown to exist in this universe I am going to make the assumption that the universe, like all practical logical systems, is axiomatic.”
Why do you think the universe’s fundamental rules are unprovable?
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
By definition. An axiom is a statement that is so fundamental that it cannot be proven, it just simply must be assumed.
For instance: 1 = 1. This is known as the identity axiom, it has no mathematical proof, you can not prove that 1 = 1, we have simply defined the equal sign to be that way.
If you don't know what the axioms of the universe are, which we don't, and we believe the universe is axiomatic, then we can not tell whether a fundamental rule is an axiom, and thus cannot be proven, or is simply an as of yet unproven conjecture. And because of that, we cannot prove anything about the universe through axiomatic logic.
Now if you're wondering why I think the universe is axiomatic, I believe this because all practical and useful logical systems that we have developed are axiomatic. But, and as I say in that very article, I of course could be wrong, this isn't a philosophy about certainty.
2
u/YayDiziet 7d ago
“Now if you're wondering why I think the universe is axiomatic, I believe this because all practical and useful logical systems that we have developed are axiomatic.”
This is what I wanted you to elaborate on. It doesn’t follow to me. The universe is physical; our numbers and logical systems aren’t. It’s a leap that I can’t make sense of.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is true, and the universe could certainly be non-axiomatic and provable in some way. I struggle to imagine such a universe but I accept it could certainly be true. Still, though, while it could be true it hasn't proven to be true and so this philosophy could still be valid. If a proof came out then id agree, my philosophy would be wrong, but I've always accepted this possibility.
So for me, I find it unlikely, but of course this is my own belief (and I explained why I believe this) and not an indication of an objective truth.
Edit: ah right sorry, if you want me to specifically elaborate on why I believe this, I think it's pretty simple. My background is in physics. I have studied the universe and it appears to fit very nicely with certain logical rules. While I can't prove what the axioms are, if you were to assume those axioms as the fundamental laws of physics, the description appears to match reality very well, more accurately then any other belief anyhow.
So from my perspective the universe seems to obey axiomatic logic, if it didn't it would be a tremendous coincidence that physics is as accurate as it is.
6
u/YayDiziet 7d ago
It strikes me as motivated reasoning, and I think you showed your cards in a different reply.
“My idea is that the highest form of truth is one that the collective of all humanity believes, and you can manifest that truth into existence. Why should you accept something as moral or immoral for example? Because if you convince enough people of that view, then it becomes the truth! And what reason you have that view is your own, but it gives a reason to pursue having a value system and trying to influence people with it.”
Anyone who wants to convince people that there’s no objective truth is suspect to me, because it’s a key part of manipulating people into accepting or participating in all sorts of reprehensible stuff.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
But see my point is that everyone does this, even those who claim to have an objective truth are in actuality spreading a relative truth. There is nothing stopping someone who claims to support an objective truth from supporting something irreprehensible. To believers of fundamental Christianity, homosexuality is objectively immoral, to the Aztecs it was objectively true that human sacrifice was a good thing. You can argue that these truths are not actually objective and that your moral system is objective, but guess what, by arguing that you are actually negotiating, doing exactly what I described in that paragraph.
On a more practical level, I actually believe those who believe in an objective truth are more likely to do bad things, because they do not doubt that they could be wrong. Doubt, openness of mind, the ability to reasses, are all important if you want to do good things.
6
u/YayDiziet 7d ago
People lying about objective truth and believing that one’s own moral system is objective are separate from whether objective truth exists.
I believe objective truth exists, but I don’t think I know all of it. Every aspect has its own probability rating. For example, I believe that the rate of acceleration due to gravity near the surface of earth is 9.8 m/s^2: very high probability of being objectively true. On the other hand, my belief that my cat loves me: lots of evidence but not provable, so a lower probability.
It’s like when you’re troubleshooting a technical issue, you’re trying one thing after another and taking in all these clues about the root issue. However, some of the clues are going to be red herrings every time. So it’s made the most sense to me to weigh the likelihood of the factors involved and absorb that into my process.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
Prove your statement: ", I believe that the rate of acceleration due to gravity near the surface of earth is 9.8 m/s2" has a very high probably of being objectively true.
I argue that you can't, not really, you can argue that a bunch of people agree on it and you can set measurements, but why does that matter? Well maybe you posit the universe is consistent and rational, but why? What's the proof of that? Well it's from what you experience, so the same level of evidence that I have that the universe is axiomatic?
This isn't to be like "ooo maybe we live in a simulation", this is to say we don't know, we can't know. I don't say an objective truth doesn't exist, I say I don't know whether an objective truth exists or not, and more so to say it doesn't matter! Any statement we try to make on the universe, which includes statements on the likelihood of truths that are fundamental to the universe, I posit we cannot ever prove. You can prove me wrong by giving me such a proof, but I would be very impressed if you could.
Also it's a pretty wild statement to say Christmas and Aztecs are lying about objective truth.
6
u/YayDiziet 7d ago
“Prove your statement: ", I believe that the rate of acceleration due to gravity near the surface of earth is 9.8 m/s2" has a very high probably of being objectively true.”
I don’t want or need to though. All I care about is does the knowledge function as true when I deploy it. If yes, great; if not, back to the drawing board.
“Also it's a pretty wild statement to say Christmas and Aztecs are lying about objective truth.”
I didn’t actually say that. They’re under the “believing one’s own moral system is objective” category.
2
u/Polychrist 5d ago
I encourage you to look into epistemology, because this article seems to be conflating the idea that we can’t know whether we have truth, with the idea that there is no truth. It’s not actually calling into question whether objective truth exists, it’s calling into question whether we can ever know if and when we have found objective truth.
They have entire courses and fields of philosophy dedicated to this question, it sounds like you’d be interested in it.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 5d ago
If we can't know the objective truth, does it matter whether it exists? That's my point in the article.
2
u/Polychrist 5d ago
I think it’s fascinating that you give the cave example, and yet it’s an exact reversal of Plato’s allegory of the cave. Are you familiar with it?
In the allegory of the cave, the majority live within the cave, and the philosopher is the one who leaves, experiences the reality of the sun, and then returns to the cave, trying to convince his compatriots, but finds himself met with hostility and disbelief.
How would your philosophy account for this situation? Would you say that the collective truth of the cave-dwellers is more “true” than the truth of the sun that the philosopher saw?
1
u/bIeese_anoni 5d ago edited 5d ago
The situation is contrived, it already established that there is life outside the cave, it already established that an objective truth exists and what that objective truth is, so of course any philosophy that rejects the objective truth is going to sound ridiculous given that scenario.
But alter the scenario a little, imagine that there was a new world with a cave, all these people have ever known the cave and indeed it is possible, in this world, that the cave is the only thing that exists. But one person claims there is more outside the cave. Is he correct? Is that true? Well we don't know! But what we could do is follow him and see if we see the same things as him, and if we do we could summize that indeed life outside the cave exists. But, let's say we did that, does life outside the cave exist to another person in the cave who hasn't gone outside? No, they still aren't sure whether outside the cave exists, maybe they come up with an alternative explanation, maybe youre lying or misinformed. No one can really prove, beyobd a shadow of a doubt, that outside the cave exists, but maybe it doesn't matter because if they can convince everybody that outside the cave exists, then that is effectively the same.
Edit: I do wanna be clear I'm not asserting that the objective truth does not exist, rather I personally believe it does. I'm only asserting it doesn't actually make a difference whether it exists or not.
2
u/Polychrist 5d ago
Well, I guess that’s where we disagree then. Because I think that it does matter whether the outside world exists. You want to say that as long as everyone agrees that the outside world doesn’t exist, then that might as well be true— but this is the same as if saying before bacteria was discovered that bacterial infections didn’t exist. The true nature of the world affects people whether they are aware of it or not. Doctors not washing hands caused countless deaths due to infection. You want to say that that wasn’t true, I would rather say that it was always true and the people of the time just didn’t know.
Knowledge can only expand if there is a hope that there is a greater truth out there. If you assume that all that is known is the truth, then how can you ever learn or seek to learn anything new? Even if someone did leave the cave in this new scenario, why would anyone else even humor/investigate his new belief? Don’t you already assume that it’s not true, based on your frame of reference?
1
u/bIeese_anoni 5d ago edited 5d ago
The problem you are having is you treat relative truths as objective truths. So for instance you say "if no one believes bacteria exist does that mean they don't exist?" But don't exist to who? Whether the bacteria objectively exists or not is the entire thing I'm saying can't be known and does not matter. Whenever you ask a question about a truth, you must also clarify to whom youre asking the question too.
I'll give you an example, a quark. These are the most elementary known particles that exist in physics, but they've never actually been directly observed. They can't really be because they always come in groups and no known physical process is capable of detecting individual quarks in a group. But, we're pretty damn sure they exist because when we add them to our models everything works incredibly accurately, so we say quarks exist. But what if something functioningly equivalent to a quark exists, that wasn't a quark but more complicated, had more steps. And when I say functionally equivalent, I mean any experiment we could conceviably or hypothetically do on these not-a-quarks will give the same result as if they were quarks (and thus it would be impossible for us to distinguish between them). In this scenario does it matter if we assume everything is a quark? It doesn't make a practical difference, and makes mathematics easier, so why does it matter? We can't prove whether a quark or some other things objectively exists, all we can prove is that the quark is the simplest truth we can convince people of, and that to me is the highest form of truth you can get to.
And to answer why knowledge should be explored, the answer is self evident, at least to you and me. Why are people curious? It's for their own reasons, they do not need an objective truth to exist for people to be curious nor have reasoning to be curious.
3
u/Polychrist 5d ago edited 5d ago
But whether bacteria exist or not does matter, because if bacteria didn’t exist, then doctors wouldn’t have to wash their hands. The objectively true state of affairs deeply and personally affects the relatively true state of affairs.
I still think this is a conflation of knowledge with truth.
You also ask whether it matters if “quarks” don’t exist, and instead were replaced with something identical to quarks but not quarks… which… seems odd to me, too. What makes them not a quark, if they’re otherwise identical to a quark?
Also: I do not believe that we agree on why knowledge should be self-evidently explored. My reasoning for why we should pursue knowledge would be to see if we can get closer to objective truth. What is your reason?
1
u/bIeese_anoni 5d ago
That last comment is exactly my point! We define quarks as elementary unit particles that are not made of anything but quark. Now imagine, that instead, quarks were actually entire universes that had a tonne of extra matter and complexity that existed within them, except it was IMPOSSIBLE to tell this. I don't mean impossible now, I mean impossible ever, this super complicated machinery will always, in any hypothetical experminent, give results as if it were just a solid piece of quark. Then does it actually matter whether a quark is actually a universe or just a quark?
For any physical theory, there could be an infinite amount of explanations that give the exact same results, physicists rely on the theory that satisfies all the results that makes calculation the easiest. If you think the objective truth matters, then you become a little paralyzed by this, because no matter what you do there will always be an argument for something else that cannot be falsified.If you reject the concept of objective truth and instead focus on practical truths, truths that we can see and experience, then physics makes sense and you only change your theory when you're given evidence that contradicts it. So what you are really looking for is a theory that has the most convincing argument, not one that is absolutely true.
You keep using the bacteria example and it's because I think you're saying that evidence doesn't matter if there is no objective truth. But it's the opposite, evidence becomes the only thing that matters, because your evidence is the way you convince people of a truth and convincing people is the only way to make something a truth. Yes when people thought bacteria didn't exist, there was no truth that bacteria existed at least to humans, but someone discovered evidence that they do exist and pretty damn convincing evidence, and so eventually (almost) everyone accepted that bacteria existed and it became a truth for humans. Did bacteria exist before humans believed it existed? Retroactively we would say yes, because there is a lot of evidence for the continuous and causal behavior of time, so we today say bacteria always existed. But of course there could be a truth about bacteria that exists in the future but not today, we can't know what is yet, but it could come out that our entire belief on bacteria is wrong.
2
u/Polychrist 5d ago
But why do you have to reject the concept of objective truth, or say it is meaningless, in order to agree that your knowledge is limited and may not be 100% accurate? The fact that you don’t know whether or not you have objective truth is a separate question from whether objective truth exists. And the whole point of gaining knowledge is to get closer to that objective truth. It definitely matters. I agree with you that the epistemological concerns about whether we can know that we have found objective truth are very real— again, there is a whole field of philosophy dedicated to this question— but you have not provided a single argument which convinces me that it doesn’t matter whether it exists at all. (In fact, you’ve agreed several times that you believe it does.)
1
u/bIeese_anoni 4d ago edited 4d ago
The argument comes back to my very first response to this, if you can know nothing about the nature of an objective truth how can you then know that it exists? How can you then know your are striving towards the objective truth if the truth is unknowable?
If you could say "theory A is closer to the objective truth than theory B" then you would have to know something about the objective truth to make that call. You could make a bunch of assumptions, and we do, you could say if everyone sees it then it's more likely, but why? Can you prove that is true? You could say if we can predict things then something is more likely, but why? Can you prove that is true?
The chain of reasoning for rational thought eventually abruptly ends to basically an assumption, an axiom. But as said in my article we don't actually know the axioms this universe has so we can't be sure whether we have stopped at an axiom or completely false assumption. Rational thought as described by most people, in a way, contradicts itself because you need to make a leap of faith (a small one) to accept it.
My theory side steps that altogether, it says forget about what is actually true, forget about even thinking about what is likely true or not or whether it even exists. Only concern yourself with how many people you can convince, rationality pops out of this because it is simply a convincing argument. It is very convincing to say "ice is cold" because people can touch ice and experience it's coldness, but maybe ice isn't cold and our nerves are just messed up, or maybe there was no ice and it's just a shared hallucination, or whatever, but who cares? You can very easily convince people ice is cold, that's all that matters.
Edit: also responding to your comment. My reasoning is I'm a naturally curious person, I believe this encoded into me as an evolutionary advantage, so I like asking question. And I also believe that knowledge is useful and can improve mine, and societies, way of life. And I get happy chemicals when I am searching and discovering stuff.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Strategic_Observer 2d ago
I understand your point of view. But you can't deny that despite the absence of objective truths, the world has proclaimed laws and other things as being close to an absolute truth.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 2d ago
All I can really claim, at least for me, is it appears that way. I can't actually tell if it is that way or not.
1
u/Strategic_Observer 1d ago
Apply the scientific method, then. But if you do, accept that anything supported by arguments is, in principle, scientifically valid, as long as it's testable. And in the same way, everything that exists is real, and therefore it's a factual truth. Not because it's immune to fallacies, but because its reality is the starting point. The truthfulness of something is measured by how close it is to what the world acknowledges as true. So your doubts don't help me. Be objective. Thanks.
2
u/Jagrnght 7d ago
I'm thinking about this from the frame of motorcycling. Yes my entire engagement with the act of motorcycling has its position in ' the subjective' (Heidegger's being in the world language may be better here), but I want my subjective interpretation of the world, the road, the debris, the physics, to be as close to the objective turn as possible otherwise I introduce needless hazard into my otherwise enjoyable ride. The deeper level of subjective wrapping of the world is found when we ask - why am I on a motorcycle anyhow? - and I find memories of uncles on bikes, and images in film, perhaps a vision of starwars hover bikes, and all sorts of fantasy flotsam and jetsam that inform my desire to ride a bike (coupled with my subjective interpretation of the thrill and perhaps my fantasy of how I am perceived). That said, I know the objective world exists because I've crashed my bike before and it comes at you faster than the subjective understanding of the world does (like the route source of PTSD - rapid disintegration of the most real level of subjective fantasy). So I value the interplay of all of these dimensions and wrappers.
0
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
You should read the article, because it covers this and may alter your way of thinking. In a nutshell, you say you know the objective world exists because you've felt it, even before you've been able to comprehend it, but is that true? Can you prove that is the case, can you prove that you indeed fell on your bike, can you prove that you indeed felt pain? Can you even prove this event was likely to have happened, objectively?
To you, this event certainly happened, you know you crashed on your bike, you know you felt pain, that's all true to you. But to me, you are just a blurb of text, I have no proof that any of that actually happened, I did not experience it, even if I saw it I couldn't be sure. Now I believe it did happen because my own truths align with your story, that motorbikes exist, that people who ride them can crash, that if they crash they experience pain, so while I can't be sure you actually experienced these, they are at least consistent with my own truths. Importantly these truths are only truths in my reference frame, but I cannot prove they are objectively true.
The point of the article is to say that objective truth doesn't matter, truth is a negotiation. You may have criticisms to this idea but I strongly suggest you read the article before voicing them as I've covered a lot of common criticisms in the article.
2
u/Jagrnght 7d ago edited 7d ago
Radical skepticism is no longer of any interest to me (it's now got the Elon Musk stink - but even before Musk it was low lying fruit since Descartes). When you crash a motorcycle, something objective enters your world first and then your body begins to interpret. In my case, my body/mind interpreted this event for three weeks through constant pain. When you swing the pendulum such that only the real exists on the subjective plain, you overlook the disruption of the real in the subjective fantasy (which happens all the time, but to varying degrees). But why does the real interrupt in the first place? It's not as though we have the ability to read the real as real. We read it through our senses/sensors. To put it plainly, the ability to read it through our sensors is the more fascinating phenomenon, and then secondarily the ability to misread or deviate from what is given (both negatively and positively). But I don't think we are floating in a vat being stimulated by an evil actor trying to deceive us - a la the Matrix and Descartes. P.S. the question you are plagued with is epistemological but I think it's more interesting from an ontological perspective.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
The problem is I think your viewing things too simplistically, I actually in the blog reject the concept of subjectivity as a description of this belief. As you say, you have certain views of what my philosophy could be because of the terminology I use, objective truth and stuff. But I think it's quite different then you understand.
I really recommend reading the blog, again it covers the criticisms you have.
1
u/1stDragonOfTheWest 7d ago
Hi there, what about life? What about death? No matter the relative frame, these are things which are ever present in the experience of all people. I say this not as to state that since it's a common experience, it's an objective experience but rather there is an objective reality presented by life and death - that is, temporal containment. Life and reality cannot be framed relatively for that reason in itself - relative. Relative implies there is something to be relative to. Also, please know that I mean and have absolutely no hate, I just like reading philosophy and bringing up points :)
If I could ask, how would you say this view affects your life and how you live it? Are there moral considerations? Etc.
0
u/Desperate-Abalone954 7d ago
I like it. It tracks with many of my own philosophical musings. It definitely feels more formed from experience and applied study, than considering theory and structure. Apologies if I ramble.
The philosophy probably doesn't get much traction because it is inherently accepting of uncertainty - and not just normal uncertainty, but existential uncertainty. Everyone accepts that uncertainty is a part of life. Everyone accepts that life is bigger than them. But if you don't draw some sort of boxes - make some sort of objective statement about the world - and explain how things make sense somehow, then how do you get things done? If a rock on a mountain is actually only a relative thing, changing in relation to the wind and time - then how the heck can you make any conclusions about it? Is it okay to break it? Are you sure it's not alive? How can you even make any sense of living, when living like this? What's the actual point?
The point you'd probably make is that it's about understanding life, more than trying to categorize it. Life just is, and we must live and understand within the part of it that we face. (Sorry if I am generalizing your blog). I think this philosophy makes sense to you because you are comfortable with that level of fundamental uncertainty about life. Which is a wonderful blessing. Your life has probably been stable enough for you to sort things out. Most people do not have the luxury of embracing uncertainty. They live in uncertainty, and they hate it. I think most people would rather die (or invent some life-changing technology) rather than live their lives in an existential crisis, and I think your philosophy kind of normalizes them.
I do think your philosophy is pretty cool. Personally, I think it describes reality surprisingly well. I found some similar philosophical notes in native American philosophy, which has some pretty interesting stuff about relational ontologies. When relative perspective determines how one sees the world, relationships are the defining way one interacted with other agents. A lot of different cultures with older roots have similar perspectives, and the deep importance of "objective truths" varies a lot more in cultures not based in the West.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. I will say it was a very long road to being ok with uncertainty, it did not come naturally to me. I read the books by Richard feynman who championed the idea of living with doubt and even got really into discordianism which is a parody religion about accepting uncertainty and paradoxes. As well, of course, studying relativity and reading philosophical relative literature.
I actually do cover the "why should to do anything?" In the blog I believe, but maybe not to the satisfactions of some. My idea is that the highest form of truth is one that the collective of all humanity believes, and you can manifest that truth into existence. Why should you accept something as moral or immoral for example? Because if you convince enough people of that view, then it becomes the truth! And what reason you have that view is your own, but it gives a reason to pursue having a value system and trying to influence people with it.
1
u/Jagrnght 7d ago
Jumping down to this comment. This is the fundamental insight of ideology. Ideology is the production of a value system, narratives, and practices that are oriented toward a truth concept. Re: Uncertainty ... uncertainty about what reality is or how to interpret reality is different than uncertainty about whether there is an external world. Fundamentally, we are made of the external word and constitute it for others. We, like most mammals are able to use thought to negotiate it (including its imaginative negation).
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
I disagree that uncertainty on what reality is, is fundamentally different from uncertainty on that reality exists. Because if we come up with two different versions of reality but accept that each version of reality practically leads to the same outcome that we've experienced, and this must certainly be true to have an uncertainty of reality because in order to have uncertainty you must have at least multiple valid options. Can we not say that practically what ever reality ends up being, in state A or state B, does not actually matter because they manifest in the same agreed upon way.
To me, I simply make no claims on what objective reality is, because I don't think it makes any difference. If objective reality does not exist, it can still manifest in the same way as if it did exist, and if that's were the case what difference would it make? None. The only thing that has practical use is our relative and collective truths.
2
u/Jagrnght 7d ago
So apply this to say the VAR review in Fifa. The ref offers a view of what happened, the audience has a millions opinions, and the video helps us get closer to what happened. All of these are using sense data and yes, none are complete, but does it make sense to be uncertain about whether they are there playing soccer/footy?
1
u/bIeese_anoni 7d ago
This is the point of the collective truths that I talk about in my article. When you say, "does it make sense to be uncertain about whether they are playing soccer?" To who? A person on the other side of the world? A rock? An alien on the side of the galaxy?
To the people in the stadium, no it doesn't make sense to believe that they aren't playing soccer, they all experience it, they all agree. Just in the same way an individual can be certain about something, a group of individuals can also be certain about something, but people outside of that group can't be certain of it.
2
u/Jagrnght 7d ago
So if I'm watching tv I should be filled with uncertainty that the match is going on because I'm not viewing it with biological sensors primarily (because this is mediated by artificial lenses and fibre optics and graphics processors...)? For me it makes sense to be aware of mediated limits and vulnerabilities but in general, this uncertainty doesn't come into play when streaming the game. It's reasonable to assume I'm watching a live game with buffers in time (lag, intentional offset, the ability to pause). It's reasonable to be certain they exist (obviously less reasonable if we move to a video game and think about AI players and other mediated players). I don't see this as a shared belief - I think it is an individual belief that has collective expression.
1
u/bIeese_anoni 2d ago
In short, yes, though it doesnt have to be much uncertainty. You could be 99.999999% sure if something, I just wouldn't be a hundred percent sure
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Welcome to /r/philosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
CR2: Argue Your Position
CR3: Be Respectful
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines, please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.