The logic of subjective and objective 'proofs' and 'Truths'

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

So toptunov, all Human speaking/verbalization/attestament is subjective, ergo subjective truths as it is true that you say it, but that does NOT mean it represents an objective truth.

We arrive a 'truth' when two people (or more) agree that a subjective statement is agreed upon as representative of what is being described, regardless of it (what is being descired) being of a material nature, or of a Non-Material nature, with a notation that since the non-material cannot be proven unless both (or more) experienced it, then one is simply professing a belief in the other.

A Lawyer (I) had met had once had a discussion with me concerning a philosopher who had written an entire book discoursing upon the existence of a desk, and proving that.

It was simple enough to show/prove the material nature/existence of the desk, just that it can be burned to ashes and then the proof is gone, photographs? they can be destroyed too, hence the Proof of the existence of the desk was temporal at best.

Me, (I) simply changed the object of the Proving and decided to use the Planet, itself, as that is one that cannot be denied, nor burned into ashes as to make it seem like it never existed.

That basically ended the conversation.

Objective proofs are all based upon subjective attestament/statements/tellings/speaking as there is NO alternative to it, it simply then requires concordance of subjective opinion to establish what we all commonly refer to as 'Truth' but the 'Truth' itself, in it's totallity, remains existent separate from all of us as we remain existent within it.

Objective truths are simply ageed upon subjective observations, so separating objective truths from subjective truths would require that you not employ subjective truth which means you can no longer tell what is is that you observe, hence objective truth, althought still existent, remains in-describable ergo Un-known as a common truth.

Does that help? as a starter?

P.S. my first language is english so (I) accept that since your isn't, this might be a little more involved as explanation, so go slow with me....O.K.?

[Toptunov]

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons,

first of all thank you for spending your time and energies to discuss with me about topics I've always liked to improve.

Yes, English is not my mothertongue and since the matter is getting harder and harder I'm anyway constrained to go slower than before.

Furthermore I'm a bit busy at the moment so I beg your pardon if the frequency of my interventions should decrease.

Be however sure that my attention to your contributions will be total and the reply will be sent as soon as my reflections generate it.

Do svidanja.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

At this juncture/point of my life, you can take all of the time that you need, (I) have nothing else but time.

Will await your thoughts on the subject. (Thanks!) :D

[Toptunov]

Sorry for the late response, Mr Robin Parsons, but sometimes there are overworking periods.

So let's start from the premises: do you think that the antithetical pair "absolute/relative" truth is synonym of "objective/subjective" truth or there are differences?

If yes, why? If no, which?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Sorry for the late response, Mr Robin Parsons, but sometimes there are overworking periods.

So let's start from the premises: do you think that the antithetical pair "absolute/relative" truth is synonym of "objective/subjective" truth or there are differences?

If yes, why? If no, which?No.

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston ONtario Canada MMVII


Subjective is how Objective is derived, but objective still exists reguardless of subjective as subjective stems from 'inner human' ...But Subjective can exist without Objective, sorta.

Absolute is how relative is derived but on a Physical plane not seemingly connected to the absolute (ideal) Plane, but all of the 'relativites' are of interrelated Absolutes, in Science - of overwhelming proportion, also known as 'Noise'

And in Absolute, relativity is the appearance of the Absolute in overwhelming measure.

But absolute exists without relativity, relativity cannot exist without absolute.

Does that help?

[Toptunov]

Yes, Mr. Robin Parsons, it helps because, even if by different reasons, I also believe they are not synonym and I'm not interested about absolute/relative truth question.

More over we can focus on our topic avoiding to deborder in Godel's theorem or Popper 's falsification principle, that have already been overexplored last century.

Our discussion about "subjective/objective truth" could cover the period Galilei-Born (from the birth of physics to the neopositivism linked to quantum mechanics) with some digressions to significant philosophers.

Is it ok? Are you interested?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, Mr. Robin Parsons, it helps because, even if by different reasons, I also believe they are not synonym and I'm not interested about absolute/relative truth question.
More over we can focus on our topic avoiding to deborder in Godel's theorem or Popper 's falsification principle, that have already been overexplored last century.
Our discussion about "subjective/objective truth" could cover the period Galilei-Born (from the birth of physics to the neopositivism linked to quantum mechanics) with some digressions to significant philosophers.
Is it ok? Are you interested?You are going to 'catch me at it' as (I) don't really know those peoples' works. :cool:

[Toptunov]

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons, one more precisation.

In our discussion I would willingly avoid the mysteric/gnostic line of knowledge (I mean from Pythagoras to Masonry), in order to focus only on the "public" knowledge (from Plato's Academy to Bohr's Copenhagener Geist).

I know it's a strong limitation, but necessary to render the categories of language clearer in order to reduce ambiguities.

Is it ok for you?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons, one more precisation.
In our discussion I would willingly avoid the mysteric/gnostic line of knowledge (I mean from Pythagoras to Masonry), in order to focus only on the "public" knowledge (from Plato's Academy to Bohr's Copenhagener Geist).
I know it's a strong limitation, but necessary to render the categories of language clearer in order to reduce ambiguities.
Is it ok for you?You can do as you would wish, just that, those lines of knowledge (mystery/gnostic) are 'known to me' and they work exceedingly well if your 'connection' (inner spiritual) is 'truthful' and you can comprehend/understand the context of what is in/imparted ...which makes it a lot less mysterious and more gnostic/gnosis.

After that ...."go for it"

[Toptunov]

Hello Mr. Robin Parsons.

Today let us apart the theory of forms, the methaphysics, the inductive/deductive methods only to focus on universal/particular categories, the forerunners in the field of philosophy of subjective/objective question for modern science.

We will not consider other philosophers but the main exponents of the “public” knowledge from Athen’s Academy and Lyceum, in order to rule out classic philosophy as useless in our discussion.

Plato defined philosophy the "science of the idea", meaning by idea what we should call the unconditional basis of phenomena, but the World of Ideas is in itself an act of faith.

His pupil Aristotle understood that Science needed to be founded by involving try-outs and by previously defining the Logical structure of thought, especially regarding language.

But in his "science of the universal essence of that which is actual" he made similar mistakes of the master, although less evident.

In fact even if Aristotle found the universal in particular things, and called it the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar, both pupil and master regard philosophy as concerned with the universal; that are implicit acts of faith.

If you agree that the above philosophers don’t take contribution to the objective/subjective question in the terms we are interested in, next time I’ll enter the hot zone: Galilei-Newton’s revolution and why science is different from philosophy.

[Epsilon=One]

...to focus on universal/particular categories, the forerunners in the field of philosophy of subjective/objective question for modern science.

...in order to rule out classic philosophy as useless in our discussion.

Plato defined philosophy the "science of the idea", meaning by idea what we should call the unconditional basis of phenomena, but the World of Ideas is in itself an act of faith.

His pupil Aristotle understood that Science needed to be founded by involving try-outs and by previously defining the Logical structure of thought, especially regarding language.I agree; and, such is an excellent approach to a meaningful dialogue.

The "Logical structure of thought...regarding language" has been well canonized by Alfred Korzybski's: "Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, third edition," 1948.

But in his "science of the universal essence of that which is actual" he made similar mistakes of the master, although less evident.I agree.

In fact even if Aristotle found the universal in particular things, and called it the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar, both pupil and master regard philosophy as concerned with the universal; that are implicit acts of faith.I agree.

And, I contend that since Gödel, Philosophy has been generally of little agreed upon fundamental truths. I don’t believe that modern, academic Philosophy can regain credibility until the dichotomy of Determinism vs. Indeterminism is settled.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Uhmmm so an antagonistic respondant has entered the thread, a Thread that (I) started, so forgive me (or not) but (I) must retire from this conversation, at this point.

Thanks for all the rest though. :cool:

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1 and Mr. Robin Parsons,

I like you both for your originality, smartness and brilliant conversation.

My proposal is to reply to each one as if they were two different threads, without you to be constrained to any mutual interaction.

For working problems the rhythm of my replies will be slower than the past, but it shouldn't stop.

Do svidanja

[Epsilon=One]

Uhmmm so an antagonistic respondant has entered the thread, a Thread that (I) started...Is it your position that each thread is not open to all members who abide by the forum rules that they have agreed to; and/or, the member that "started" the thread controls who may contribute?

Where do you detect antagonism is my contribution to this thread? In fact, a careful parsing of my only prior contribution to this thread, would seem to indicate just the opposite; your comment seems to be mistaken and misleading to any casual reader that was not aware of your unreasonable paranoia.

...(I) must retire from this conversation, at this point.You stated earlier, in this thread, concerning Kurt Gödel and Karl Popper, on February 3: "You are going to 'catch me at it' as (I) don't really know those peoples' works." Your honesty concerning this matter, at that time, was laudable; however, I would suggest that you become familiar with their “works”; as the nuances of their thoughts are very important for anybody that would pretend to understand theoretical physics. There is near endless information on the internet for those that don’t have the time to read their “works” directly. Should anyone be interested, I would be happy to post a suggested, abbreviated, reading list of salient thoughts.

:cool:??? ??? ???

[Epsilon=One]

My proposal is to reply to each one as if they were two different threads, without you to be constrained to any mutual interaction.Thank you for any consideration.

For working problems the rhythm of my replies will be slower than the past, but it shouldn't stop.Do not be concerned, for my part. I am certain that you have much more important uses of your time.

Your contributions are always insightful . . . and quite enjoyable.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Dear Y1 and Mr. Robin Parsons,
I like you both for your originality, smartness and brilliant conversation.
My proposal is to reply to each one as if they were two different threads, without you to be constrained to any mutual interaction.
For working problems the rhythm of my replies will be slower than the past, but it shouldn't stop.
Do svidanjaThanks anyways but (I) will 'stand the ground' as the 'other' is not trustworthy or reliable, to me.

Time spent here in these forums has proven that to me all to many times.

But it was nice while it lasted, (I) did enjoy the exchange.

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks anyways but (I) will 'stand the ground' as the 'other' is not trustworthy or reliable, to me.It is nice to know that you are now reading my posts, which despite your continuing, blatant untruthflness and protests to the contrary, I never had doubt that you did.

Time spent here in these forums has proven that to me all to many times.I would appreciate any example in my 1,000 or more posts where I have ever been untrustworthy or unreliable; as, I would like to immediately assuage the misunderstanding.

Yet, I have cited near endless examples of your deception; your last post herein is an excellent example of deception, which would appear to be criminal: bordering on printed slander.

Of course the operative words, of your statement, may be "to me"; but such would seem to offer little mitigation.

[Toptunov]

I see.

Thank you for both your nice words and excellent conversation.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I see.

Thank you for both your nice words and excellent conversation.Ditto, (means 'the same' or 'copy or echo') back to you. :cool:

[Toptunov]

Here we are once more, dear Y1!

My time has become incredibly short, so I'm going to ask you a particular thing.

You're totally right about the value of both Goedel and Popper, but since I've been studying these authors for years, I'd like to focus on another period less considered by the mainstream.

I would like to explore from Galilei-Newton to Hume-Comte in particular, with further references on Born-Einstein letters.

In fact I believe that there's something left to find out from that period with your help (and whoever is interested).

Is it good for you, or on the contrary you find it meaningless research?

[Epsilon=One]

I would like to explore from Galilei-Newton to Hume-Comte in particular, with further references on Born-Einstein letters.
...

Is it good for you, or on the contrary you find it meaningless research?Thoughts, of these giants, should be good for everyone; certainly, never can it be meaningless.

Ah yes; you are returning me to my roots. And, also, making me dive to my book shelf to fortify a fading memory. Most all books I have read are annotated; and, the annotations, for the most part, have made their way into my computer. I use an Isys software internal search engine; so, hopefully, I can get up to speed.

Or, at minimum, I know I will enjoy trying. I spent many years on such thought until I realized that for my purposes Gödel was the end of the trail. Because of my realism, I have almost forgotten how important the ideas of these men were for shaping nearly 300 years of western history before Born-Einstein.

I abandoned much of my philosophic research after writing the following, which should give you some insight into my mind. See: Indeterminism . . . Settled (www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=190).

Please do not over tax your important time in replying.

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1,

if I should wait the right moment to go on conversating with you, it would probably come only after retiring from job (and maybe neither then...).

So let us go on in the few moments I'll be allowed to.

In the first part it will be me to ask you why we consider Galileo-Newton's perspective the first scientific one after centuries of partial trials.

I've got my personal opinion about the "birtyh of physics", but since I'd like to learn from different interlocutors, I'll keep it for last.

So, what's your opinion about the birth of physics?

[chrisforbes]

If two people arrive at the same truth it is not a truth just a common view.

Your desk question was metaphysical, my view is that if you can see it and touch it I guess its there. The question is not about the desk it is a view on the universe.

Ask yourself this question, who am I, where am I from, what am I? It is a much better question.