The problem with that is that it doesn’t help us find anything new. It simply states what we already know as a fact, and doesn’t allow for forward movement by complex multiplication that would lead us to new findings.
It’s more of an ontological reality that the objective-world doesn’t exist as a comparison to something else. I just noticed that we use the A=B format and that maybe those can never represent objective reality by definition.
I’m running into the same thing for measurement:
What is a unit of measurement?
I ran around looking for, for example, what is a “meter”? and came up with this:
“Now, it is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.”
and I immediately see that, wait, how accurate is our measurement of the speed of light and how accurate is our measurement of a second?
Do you see where this is headed? Basically there is no objective unit of measurement. It’s all A=B; one measurement compared to something else, and they are all inaccurate. Measurement is always flawed.
This is helping to build up my understanding of objective reality. So far I’ve got these:
Objective reality is always unflawed
Objective math doesn’t use an equals sign
Objective measurement is always non-comparative (actually, probably doesn’t exist by definition, but oh well)
Subjective reality is always flawed
Subjective math uses the equals sign
Subjective measurement is always comparative
These are things that I have come up with since I’ve been here.
True, except that how could you possibly measure something except by comparing it to something else? If we all knew exactly how long a meter was, then yes, the idea of comparing it to something else wouldn’t make sense. But we obviously don’t have some innate sense that tells us how long something is.
True.
True.
6.True.
In this context, Objectivity and Subjectivity remind me of the difference between stating a fact and asking a question. And, while of course stating a fact would be the most “true,” how are we ever going to learn that fact without first asking a question?
Now, as a base for scientific knowledge, it would make sense to objectively hold that information as a fact.
I suppose I am making assertions about the objective world. If you don’t believe an objective world exists, fine, there are plenty of threads about that.
I agree that perception of the object involves both the object and your eyes/brain, but I think that we still have to deal with the object as if it is an objective thing. To do otherwise would be starting to stretch into nihilism, a border I do not want to cross.
Velocity = the time rate of change of position of a body in a specified direction.
Mass = a body of coherent matter
6.022x10^23/mol = “Avogadro’s Number”
c = a letter of the alphabet
That we perceive things as comparisons is the idea. Objective reality is unperceived, and I am suggesting uncompared, therefore no equals sign in “objective math”.
It’s new to me too so I’m still thinking about it.
Yeah, #3 was kind of clunky. Basically, I don’t think “measurement” exists in the objective realm. That “measurement” is something that is only done subjectively. So what I was saying was:
measurement is comparative
objective reality is non-comparative
and then I was incorrectly saying:
objective reality measurement is non-comparative (which is I think a contradiction)
So the definition is still unsatisfactory but I think express some truth. I hope to get a more elegant way of saying it eventually (please feel free to offer suggestions).
The new word that I really like is “non-comparative”.
(OK, Google search shows 119,000 pages for “non-comparative”, so it’s not exactly new)
I believe the equal sign is useful only as a notation device.
When a complex formula arises, you can make the notation for it simply by saying that it all equals “X.” Then you can substitute the formula wherever needed with X.
It should probably be implicitly taught that the equal sign is not a useful means of describing reality. The biconditional probably suffices anyway. I can imagine doing any of the math I’d normally do, using a biconditional for all equal signs. I’d have to be careful, however, to keep a clear difference between values and propositions (or concepts).
This leads to the idea that math in general does not reflect objective reality. If one negates the use of the equals sign, one can then go on to negate the use of the individual symbols Y, Z, and 2.
This doesn’t sound right since math seems to so accurately explain so many things. I mean, E=mc2 seems to explain a truism very simply AND it has an equals sign. BUT then again, E=mc2 compares energy to matter (right?) and does not represent a formula for some individual “thing”. It seems to explain one thing turning into another thing.
Does anyone see the trouble I’m having with this? Is there some school of philosophy that provides terms and jargon to explain these concepts?
And I guess I have the same problem with it: that objectively it is just “then” (no “if”).
I thought of dimensions: 2 X 4 X 3 inches. This seems to reflect an object in reality. But I’ve left out the equals signs haven’t I? It is actually:
2 = height
4 = depth
3 = width
inches = 25.4 millimetres
millimetre = one thousandth of a metre
metre = the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second
second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom
caesium-133 atom = ???
So the dimensions of 2 X 4 X 3 inches is actually tied to something having to do with the caesium atom? Something seems strange here, yes?
I should say that this is not an affront to science or math. I’m just wrestling with the ideas of a possible circularity or open-ended-ness of the logic: that measurements always seem to float off into the realm of the unknown.
With respect to “objective” reality, you’re saying that no mathematical statement can be made using the equals sign. How about inequalities? There are three basic “verbs” in mathematics, =, . You’re saying that the first of these cannot be used in making statements about objective reality. May we assume that you believe the other two also cannot be used, or is that incorrect?
If that is what you are saying, then you are saying that no statements can be made about objective reality which can be expressed mathematically, since a mathematical expression which does not use at least one of those three verbs is not a statement, i.e., it says nothing.
What about statements that do not use mathematics? Are there statements in words that can be made about objective reality?
I guess what I’m doing is pointing out how math, logic, and language are all tilted in a way towards the subjective (which makes sense). Perhaps I’m contemplating that all tangible concepts are connected to the intangible: that our systems of thinking, while strong, are always tied through a path of connections to the weak. I tried to make that point by showing how a simple example of an object in three dimensions is connected to the definition of what a caesium atom is.
I was hoping that someone would supply me with the “oh yeah, that’s Flarfloovian Philosophy created by Prosecurius Flarfloovius in the year 906” or whatever.
But it’s still somewhat vague right now. I’ve posted about all the ideas I have and am looking for someone else to add to it, argue against it, or augment it. To answer your questions: I’m not sure. Language seems just as weakly tethered to the objective as math, although the definition of the word “objective” is evidence to the opposite. Perhaps philosophy can better understand the objective than science and math can.
Maybe this is just what is meant by ontological versus epistemological, and I am learning why science and math are limited to the epistemological by virtue of their construction.
Actually, I would say that science doesn’t consider either epistemology or ontology. Science is founded on philosophical conclusions regarding epistemology, and assumes those conclusions to be correct. It does not question them. Specifically, science assumes that a combination of empirical observation and reason, with empirical observation dominant, is the best way to gain knowledge about the workings of nature. This combination, in which we observe phenomena, then attempt to explain them or model them through reason, and then check our reasoning with further observation, and so on, is called “the scientific method.” However, the scientific method is not itself based on science. Rather, science is based on it, and there is no way to justify it scientifically. One must do so philosophically instead.
As for ontology, science simply ignores the whole question. It does not assume any answers nor attempt to provide them. All science claims is that there are observable regularities in nature which follow predictable patterns. Whether those regularities are part of an “objective” reality, or exist only in the mind, or only as themselves, science does not suggest. One can approach them in any of these ways, as long as one acknowledges that the regularities are there to be observed.
So you’re absolutely right. These are questions which cannot be answered scientifically or through mathematics. If we believe them to be important, we must use other tools.
What I was trying to get at in my earlier post, though, was this. Are there any statements regarding objective reality that can be made, whether using mathematics or in some other fashion? If so, can you suggest a few?
Well, I suppose the term that I’m using for the objective world is “non-comparative” (which is the opposite of our subjective approach). That the “math” of an object is not symbolic (which is the opposite of ours and which is I suppose redundant of the term “non-comparative”).
That’s all I’m suggesting on this thread. I’m actually looking for more ideas to expound upon. Extrapolation.
And the comparative math of the subjective I see as unfolding out to the point of being totally abstract, which is saying more about subjective perception than objective reality.
