• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Objective reality

One of those days for me...

But to respond to the end, when multiple subjective entities seem to have the same experience then that is intersubjectivity. However, higher intersubjectivity doesn't necessarily lend itself to what's more objective, but appeals more to what happens to be entailed in most people's experience. It's possible that the majority is more mistaken in a given context than a minority. An example of this would be views on psychedelics. Many lay people will denigrate and disparage psychedelics, lumping them into the same category as other drugs. Then there's a minority like us, who see otherwise... and are likely more accurate or even "objective" in our stances.

One love
 
Last edited:
Hej! Isn´t it that colors depend on different reflective. So it depends on kind of perspective..which i found interesting, because its almost same with other mind "things", like emotions and stuff;). If there is something like "objectiv reality", there are many ways to look at this too.
 
Just arrived home from the first class of theoretical philosophy from uni.
The professor introduced the topic sorites paradox and it reminded me a bit about this thread.

The example he used was about baldness.
One of the questions stated was, at which point someone could be viwed as bald?
There was one fact "Someone with 100.000 hairs is not bald".
Then an action was stated "When tearing a single hair then it does not make someone bald".
The implication of that is "When tearing a single hair from 100.000 hairs then someone will not be bald".
The paradox starts when the action is performed repetitively, which could result in that baldness does not exist.

All of that is actually not really that relevant for the following thoughts but I sort of wanted to introduce this topic before writing down my thoughts.
If we do not consider everything from above then at some point someone could be viewed as bald.
As example, lets assume that I am bald which would be objectively true.
But when I would wear a wig then even myself could perceive myself as not bald anymore when i look myself in the mirror.
Even when I perceive myself as not bald, it would not change the baldness objectively.
If i would view myself as bald or not is maybe another question.
But others would perceive and view myself as not bald as long as they would not know that I am wearing a wig.
But even that would not change it in an objective manner.
Voidmatrix said:
But to respond to the end, when multiple subjective entities seem to have the same experience then that is intersubjectivity. However, higher intersubjectivity doesn't necessarily lend itself to what's more objective, but appeals more to what happens to be entailed in most people's experience. It's possible that the majority is more mistaken in a given context than a minority. An example of this would be views on psychedelics. Many lay people will denigrate and disparage psychedelics, lumping them into the same category as other drugs. Then there's a minority like us, who see otherwise... and are likely more accurate or even "objective" in our stances.
Click to expand...
That means that everyone else not knowing that I am wearing a wig think/believe intersubjectively what is perceived by them as more objective.
And with more objective I mean that they think/believe that I am not bald.
 
That example highlights my issue with mathematical induction 🤣 well, I have a problem with induction in how people interpret it anyway.

Now we're getting down to linguistics as well as about a potential mutability in objective reality.

Linguistically, it comes down to how we define bald. We could very well use a definition wherein wearing a wig no longer entails one in baldness (this is however not how the definition presently functions).

How you view yourself given that could depend on the moment: in one moment with the wig youare"not bald" but in the moment you are wearing a wig you are "bald."

Kant would say we get all the phenomena and none of the noumena, the nounena being objective reality.

One love
 
Voidmatrix said:
That example highlights my issue with mathematical induction 🤣 well, I have a problem with induction in how people interpret it anyway.
Click to expand...
I am curious about how you view mathematical induction.
Would you like to share your thoughts?

Voidmatrix said:
Now we're getting down to linguistics as well as about a potential mutability in objective reality.

Linguistically, it comes down to how we define bald. We could very well use a definition wherein wearing a wig no longer entails one in baldness (this is however not how the definition presently functions).
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts.

Voidmatrix said:
How you view yourself given that could depend on the moment: in one moment with the wig youare"not bald" but in the moment you are wearing a wig you are "bald."
Click to expand...
I thought more about that being perception.
Meaning that looking into the mirror with the knowledge of being bald while wearing a wig, would result in perceiving not being bald but because of that knowledge viewing myself as bald.
If what I wrote makes any sense at all.
 
These are my possible realities:
* Objective reality => things are just the way they are. You have no influence beyond the rules of that reality. Physics is just what it is.
* Subjective reality => I think therefore you are (or vice versa)
* Cumulative subjective reality => what we all think together is what we are (Gaya theory in essence).


None of these can be proven or falsified, so no valid science outcome is possible, though they are excellent material for mental philosophy gymnastics.

And objective reality has a few things going for it: we keep observing the same things over and over and over again, always with the same outcome. Even with quantum theories we can predict their probability. QED is the most precise theory we have as humanity, and we even already know that it's not fully in sync with the observed reality. 🤷

And if some fundamental parameters of our universe were just slightly off, like one of the fundamental forces, we would not be able to exist (also impossible to prove since it cannot be falsified and again it's just only great for some mental philosophical gymnasticst/masochism). 😇


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
I wish more people had the type of awareness you do @The Traveler to meticulously notice some of these moving parts.

Your post reminded me of something yet to be solved in epistemology and empiricism, first mentioned by Hume and further entertained by Kant.

Hume observed that there isn't really a necessary connection between cause and effect. We see two things happen, one  followed by another. How can we be sure that our brains/minds don't fill in the space with cause and effect.

Something following something else is different than causing that something else. In ordinal numbers, 2 follows 1, but is not cause by it.

Then Kant through time and space in there as well, noticing that there may be a faculty in our minds for time and space to make sense of the world, but time and space might not be extant.

Which brings me to an idea I've had in considering consciousness in all this. What if somethings are causal, other things follow, and there's a bit of this and a bit of that with regard to space and time being ontologically extant exterior to mind and it being a faculty of mind.

Then we have the divide between our phenomenology of the world and the world. In sync with observed reality may be in sync with observed phenomenology and science is still a phenomenological pursuit. 🤣

One love
 
Last edited:
After reading some philosophical literature i am very sure that this thread does not really provide any philosophical depth.
All it does is expressing an interest for philosophy and initially some general statements which find an application on various topics.
While I have this oppinion about this, I also think thats OK because it enables many thought routes.
But these thought routes do not provide any depth yet.
But what the most important aspect for me is, how I will view everything in a few years.

I also think to understand why it is so important to interact with different people.
As this interactions provide sometimes the neccessary impulses to develop into the "right" direction or get a better understanding of various aspects.
But definetly not only that.
 
Physics131 said:
After reading some philosophical literature i am very sure that this thread does not really provide any philosophical depth.
All it does is expressing an interest for philosophy and initially some general statements which find an application on various topics.
While I have this oppinion about this, I also think thats OK because it enables many thought routes.
But these thought routes do not provide any depth yet.
But what the most important aspect for me is, how I will view everything in a few years.

I also think to understand why it is so important to interact with different people.
As this interactions provide sometimes the neccessary impulses to develop into the "right" direction or get a better understanding of various aspects.
But definetly not only that.
Click to expand...
Try to create some interesting thought experiments. Then find possible ways to test them.

One of those thought experiments that I really like is another person placing a pack of milk in a another room on the table, then leaves, when I go into the same room afterwards I find the same pack of milk in the same room in the same place. So apparently in the mean time, by not observing the state, it did not change the expected outcome, at all.

That is quite interesting, unless you think about the fact that it can all be coincidence, or just a perfect (cumulative) subjective reality making that as likely possible as the other explanations.

For now I have called this out as 'dark reality' since it's a phenomenon we observe over and over again without knowing the why behind it.

Its like the same with dark matter and dark energy; we observe the effect but still have no insight into the working. 🤷
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom