/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9950607
Do you want the answer to your question or just one possible answer from one possible perspective?
Asking a question presupposes objectivity because getting an answer that is just one out of an indefinite number of equally possible answers is equivalent to getting no answer at all. A question asks for an answer hence it asks for THE answer.

Is the statement "There is no objective truth" an objective truth?

>>9950607
there is but people are dumb so common consensus is the best we have

>>9950607
No formal system can be consistent or complete.

If I imagine a world, that world objectively exists inside my mind even if it's just imaginary.
The world you know, is not the real world. It's an imaginary recreation you've constructed from your sensory information as well as other information you've adopted by communicating with other people.

If you were to ask "does the world really exist?" you'd have to specify which one. The one you imagined using your senses as data points, the world that those sensory datapoints are based off of, or the world that's been communicated to you from other people?

bump

>>9950607
It's semantics. All depends on what you define as objective truth.
It's out of scope for science. Science is only concerned with modeling reality.

>>9952247
>reality
But is reality objective?

>>9952249
how would it be real if it wasn't objective doofus

>>9952253
It could be real subjectively doofus

That's the problem Descartes tried to solve.
Because there were things we (humanity in general and the individual person specifically) believed with absolute certainty that turned out to be wrong he wondered if there were things we could truly believe without a shadow of a doubt, and if so, what they were.
I'm not the most eloquent writer, so I won't try to rephrase his argument, but in a nutshell he tried starting from scratch as far as knowledge goes to figure out what we can be absolutely certain of, even further back from what our senses tell us, because those can be clouded, confused or mislead.
He reached the conclusion that if he can doubt and question his own existence than surely there's someone there to ask those questions, the fact he can wonder about those things proves he exists, "I think, therefor I am".
The rest of his work is pretty controversial because he throws god in the mix there, but the "I think, therefor I am" part is still pretty ironclad.
That's the only thing a person can be absolutely sure of in the most objective way possible, that he exists.

>>9952275
And after Descarte you get Hume arguing there may not even be a self to do the doubting.

>>9952249
It depends on how you define objective reality.

Stop introducing new terms without clearing potential misconceptions. When you start by forming definitions you'll realize you can answer most of your questions on your own, brainlet.

>>9950607
There is. See http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/

>>9952299
Do you take this seriously?

>>9952305
Yes.

>>9952310
You shouldn't.

>>9952312
Yudkowsky has a lot of good writing and it makes sense.

>>9952282
>It depends on how you define objective reality
How do you define it? I don't have any answers

>>9952315
What do you study in university?

>>9952299
>>9952315
T. Yudkowsky

>>9952319
Maths & computer science

>>9952316
Depends on problem i have to solve.
For example we have the problem of preferred frame of reference. We can use reality as synonym for frame of reference and objective reality as preferred frame of reference as understood under theory of relativity.
Then we can prove there is no such a thing and every reality is equivalent.

>>9952358
>Then we can prove there is no such a thing and every reality is equivalent.
Can we do this?

>>9952373
It comes directly from special relativity.
Physics works the same way no matter which inertial frame of reference you are using. To learn more you have to read about relativity.

>>9952423
GR and QM are incomplete theories

>>9952426
Yes. That's why I said "under theory of relativity". You need to specify framework you use when you deal with physical problems.

>>9952423
>Physics works the same way no matter which inertial frame of reference you are using.
>implying we are perceiving the world-in-itself and are able to describe it's physics

>>9952445
Physics is literally the description we are making. That's how we define that word.
Whenever it's "valid" or "fake" depends on how you define these terms and it's out of scope for physics or science in general.

>>9952451
>Physics is literally the description we are making
No, we're making a description of our perceptions, not of the noumenal

>>9950607
According to recently published research (R. Giuliani et al. 2018), there is a contradiction in the formalization of objective truth.

>>9952454
Yes, that description is still what we consider physics. Noumenal is metaphysics, and it's not part of physics.

>>9950635
This is essentially the same as "All rules have exceptions."

>>9952299
>middle name schlomo

>>9952459
So, why aren't we studying and experimenting in metaphysics then?

>>9952692
Not science.

>>9950607
The only alternative to the existence of some "objective reality" that I'm aware of is solipsism, and it's simply much more useful to believe that things continue to exist when you aren't thinking about them.

>>9952693
Yeah, it sounds like it would be an improvement.

>>9952693
How?

>>9952778
Not really.
In physics we assume the world as we perceive it is real and we can do measurements. Because of that we can describe that world and apply that knowledge.
But when you start question reality itself, your conclusions became meaningless. You need some framework to give meaning to your statements. Just like in math which is completely independent from physical world. You need to assume axioms in math for it to work. You can freely assume and discard them, but without any axioms nothing can be ever proved.

>>9952783
Doesn't use scientific method.

>>9950607
>Is there objective truth
yes

>>9950607
everything is objective truth if it is independently observable. if you're looking for a more philosophical discussion wrong board >>>/his/

>>9952831
What prevents scientists from prodding the metaphysical "world" with the scientific method? I don't think metaphysics automatically makes conclusions found within it meaningless just because some of the questions involve "why".

>>9952921
scientists do more than "prod at the metaphysical world", experiments are done on lab animals' senses and general thought patterns unless you're suggesting that human experimentation should be completed which would probably be really unethical

>>9952939
I think you and I have vastly different definitions of the "metaphysical", which, like all discussions involving concepts that are not well defined, is causing us to try and cross a chasm with no bridge.

>>9952947
you should have defined what you meant by metaphysics if not utilizing a sensory base. there's no scientific means to experiment with how philosophical concepts materialize other than what I stated at the present

>>9952953
To me, metaphysics should just be the realms and objects and effects of reality that are currently unknown to science or at least theoretical. So, stuff like higher dimensions and the Bulk, or parallel universes and the multiverse, that's metaphysics. God remains in this realm as well.

>>9952921
Because when you don't assume any axioms, nothing can be proven. Truth doesn't exists and everything is meaningless. There is only apparent meaning coming from the limitation of our language and semantics.
When you question whenever the world is real, you have no world to test your hypothesis which is part of scientific method.

>>9952962
metaphysics and scientific hypotheses based on extensions of concepts often overlap, but the two are mutually exclusive in practice. you can think of something that turns out to probably be true through observation, but you can't prove through any sort of scientific method using thought alone (this is the problem that Srinivasa Ramanujan initially had)

>>9953005
And how does metaphysics, or the unknown/theoretical to science become untestable by the scientific method? Most of physics nowadays is only testable through math, how is that any different from the testing of metaphysics?