When people speak of proof its only a matter of convincing or attempting to convince. Absolute knowledge of all unknown possibilities are unnattainble and there are always infinite unknown possibilities for every occurrence.
You are incorrect. Some things are deductible from other things. When this is done, you have a proof. Some things are true by definition. Take the simple example:
A bachelor is an unmarried male.
I am male.
I am unmarried.
Therefore I am a bachelor.
It’s proven. There’s no valuation there. It’s not a matter of convincing you or creating something which I intend to sell you as being true. It just is. And it’s proven.
Or I might say, it’s raining. Then you could walk outside and see the rain, and feel it falling on you, and it would be proven.
That depends what you mean by those words, which can only be assumed to be the same as your personal subjective meaning, as perfect communication is impossible?>)
Everything is not subjective. As a matter of fact, anything can be quantified given the proper stipulations, and there is a string of objectivity that runs through everything. The subjective/objective distinction doesn’t apply to objects per se. Nothing is just subjective or just objective.
Some things can be proven to certain standards of proof and others to other standards of proof. When certain information is necessarily unavailable, asking for a higher standard of proof than is possible is just silly. Think about the way a scientist proves something. Now think about the way a preacher proves something. There’s a big difference.
Here’s something to think about…
No two people are ever going to see the same things at the same times from the same point in space.
But, no matter how different people’s experiences are, and no matter what the various interpretations are of any given phenomena, the fact remains that the act of perceiving is something that can be quantified all the way down to the biological level. You may perceive something, and I may perceive the same thing, and we may have entirely different subjective experiences of it. But, the thing is the same in and of itself, and the act by which we perceive it is the same. So while we may both see the same thing, and you might think it sucks and I might think it’s cool, the thing is the same no matter how we feel about it, and neither of us is really confused, (at least not at this point) about it because we perceive it the same way.
So therein lies the objectivity. Perception can be quantified. Getting outside of perception in analytically impossible. And there really isn’t a endless set of possible interpretations or what have you, because some are impossible.
Since “proof” is subject to subjective standards, objectively then my claim that there is no such thing as proof is valid, albeit also as valid as the claim that there is such a thing as proof… depending on how convinced you are to consider something proof. Thus, why it is a matter of convincing.
I know with absolute certainty that i am drinking bud light right now. the only proof i need is a label on the side and the memory of opening the can. then of course no one could have fooled me and put water in the can right.
Proof is when something is illustrated to be deducible from something else.
The something else may sometimes be referred to as an axiom.
Like the axiom of identity.
Most of the time these are taken as self evident.
For instance 1=1. This is self evident. The symbols on each side are the same. the symbol in the middle means, “if the symbols on each side are the same, then this statement is true”. This is not a matter of opinion.
From an axiom like identity, we can deduce that if…
a=b
and b=c
then a=c.
I know what it means. Your thoughts that you’re open to the possibility of proof tells me that you’re open to the possibility of being thoroughly convinced.