4 ms·

> he only truths I can imagine that could meet those requirements would have to be really abstract, like 1+1=2 And that is not even universally or absolutely t

by nico 3y ago

> he only truths I can imagine that could meet those requirements would have to be really abstract, like 1+1=2 And that is not even universally or absolutely true, 1+1=2 is a set of symbols that need to be interpreted by someone for them to have meaning, it’s a concept made up by people Hence, 1+1=2 is just as relative as anything else we express through language

fluoridation 3y ago
"1+1=2" as a string of symbols is open to interpretation, however, both you and I understand the idea that that string of symbols is conveying, and that idea is true objectively.
- nico 3y ago
  It’s just an agreement that has been pretty much forced on anyone that has a basic school education I can choose to disagree and doesn’t matter what you do I can assign a different meaning to it No ideas are objective truth, and objective truth is something that can’t even be tested
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    >I can assign a different meaning to it I don't even understand what that means. Ideas don't have meaning, they are meaning. What does it mean to assign a different meaning to the idea represented as "1+1=2"? >No ideas are objective truth No. Mathematical truths are objectively true. Even if addition itself is false in the universe, in the sense that in some cases you can put one real thing next to another and get other than two real things next to each other as a result, that 1+1=2 is true objectively. It would just mean that the universe is based on an axiomatic system that is more lax than our own.
    - nico 3y ago
      You can believe whatever you want, assign any meaning you want I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon I can also say that 1+1=11 I can’t force you (nor anyone else), to accept or agree with those meanings, but I can definitely assign any meaning I want No ideas, nor meaning, nor formulas, nor math are objective truth Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is, which we all perceive and experience differently in a subjective manner
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        >I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon You're still confusing the symbols with the meaning. >Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree Please explain how objective truth existing would prevent people from disagreeing with each other. >And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is Yes, that's more or less what I said. However, those models contain objectively true statements with regards to themselves. According to the theory of relativity no object can go faster than light, correct? A sandwich is an object, correct? Then it's objectively true that according to the theory of relativity a sandwich can't go faster than light. It doesn't matter whether sandwiches actually are capable of going faster than light, that the theory of relativity states (indirectly) that sandwiches can't go faster than light is an objective truth.
      - Novosell 3y ago
        If I write "water is wet", I'm referring to the matter known as water, not the symbols that make up the English word "water". Likewise, in this conversation, 1+1=2 is saying that if you take the idea represented by the symbol 1 and then add it to itself, the result is the idea represented by the symbol 2. The ideas behind words and the words themselves are not equivalent.
  - fijiaarone 3y ago
    Sounds like a pretty piss poor attempt at an absolute by someone who aspires to the label “sophomoric” in the most asinine and juvenile sense.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    "1 + 1 = 2" has a commonly understood meaning that implies a system of axioms and theorems and whatnot so as to be an objectively true statement in that context. You're not being asked to interpret what someone means by "1 + 1 = 2"; you're being asked to examine that string of characters in the context of a specific system that you clearly understand.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >both you and I understand the idea that that string of symbols is conveying Until the moment we have to take each other to court, then suddenly two different trials with two different juries comes out with conflicting answers.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    What are you on about?
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Yeah, I like to lie too.
naasking 3y ago
> Hence, 1+1=2 is just as relative as anything else we express through language The symbols are relative, the semantics are not.
- nico 3y ago
  Well, I can disagree with that, so what can you do then? If you can’t force everyone to agree on the same semantics, you can’t have absolute semantics Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, including absolute semantics, but that is your own personal subjective opinion (even if popular or accepted in the mainstream)
  - naasking 3y ago
    I don't know what "absolute semantics" means. If you mean "objective semantics", then yes that's already objective. If you mean "universal semantics", well there's rarely universal agreement on anything, so I'm not sure why I should find the existence of a few contrarians persuasive.
    - nico 3y ago
      So you are essentially saying that you can keep your own ideas of “objective semantics” because you can dismiss people who disagree with you Which means you have a subjective definition of the meaning of “objective semantics” Objective doesn’t exist Everyone can assign their own meaning and not agree on what something means We are doing it right now on this thread You might say that there is an objective reality or truth regardless of whatever anyone else says, but you can’t prove that Your whole life experience is subjective, and you can never detach from it, you (nor anyone) can ever have an objective experience of anything You believing that there is some sort of objective anything is just your own subjective belief
      - vacuity 3y ago
        There are objective truths in the world. Or, to be more precise, there are objective truth's in each person's "world", their sense of reality. "1 + 1 = 2" is objectively true given a certain system of axioms and theorems that are generally understood. Yes, you need to include that context to be objective, but that doesn't make it invalid. Another objective fact that I can confidently say is that I can think. Does that mean I know I'm not living in a simulation? Of course not, but some way or another, my perception of the world includes my thoughts. I can't prove to you that I think, because Hacker News might just be glitching and sending this reply to you (or maybe it's the simulation overseers, ha!), but I know that I think. How? Because I think. Why? I don't know and I don't care that much. > You might say that there is an objective reality or truth regardless of whatever anyone else says, but you can’t prove that I get what you mean here, and I agree, but it's untrue that "1 + 1 = 2" can't be objectively true. It can, as long as certain semantics are applied. A sufficiently smart alien that understands what we mean by "1", "+", "=", "2", the set of integers, what a field is, and so on can only reasonably conclude the same. It also isn't objectively true that there are no objective truths in the sense of "racism bad". We can't know if it's objectively true, but given the context of, well, the world, maybe it is an objective truth. Not that it matters, since we can't know, but still. Although you could argue that those statements shouldn't be considered statements anymore.

by nico 3y ago

fluoridation 3y ago

"1+1=2" as a string of symbols is open to interpretation, however, both you and I understand the idea that that string of symbols is conveying, and that idea is true objectively.

nico 3y ago
It’s just an agreement that has been pretty much forced on anyone that has a basic school education I can choose to disagree and doesn’t matter what you do I can assign a different meaning to it No ideas are objective truth, and objective truth is something that can’t even be tested
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >I can assign a different meaning to it I don't even understand what that means. Ideas don't have meaning, they are meaning. What does it mean to assign a different meaning to the idea represented as "1+1=2"? >No ideas are objective truth No. Mathematical truths are objectively true. Even if addition itself is false in the universe, in the sense that in some cases you can put one real thing next to another and get other than two real things next to each other as a result, that 1+1=2 is true objectively. It would just mean that the universe is based on an axiomatic system that is more lax than our own.
  - nico 3y ago
    You can believe whatever you want, assign any meaning you want I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon I can also say that 1+1=11 I can’t force you (nor anyone else), to accept or agree with those meanings, but I can definitely assign any meaning I want No ideas, nor meaning, nor formulas, nor math are objective truth Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is, which we all perceive and experience differently in a subjective manner
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      >I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon You're still confusing the symbols with the meaning. >Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree Please explain how objective truth existing would prevent people from disagreeing with each other. >And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is Yes, that's more or less what I said. However, those models contain objectively true statements with regards to themselves. According to the theory of relativity no object can go faster than light, correct? A sandwich is an object, correct? Then it's objectively true that according to the theory of relativity a sandwich can't go faster than light. It doesn't matter whether sandwiches actually are capable of going faster than light, that the theory of relativity states (indirectly) that sandwiches can't go faster than light is an objective truth.
    - Novosell 3y ago
      If I write "water is wet", I'm referring to the matter known as water, not the symbols that make up the English word "water". Likewise, in this conversation, 1+1=2 is saying that if you take the idea represented by the symbol 1 and then add it to itself, the result is the idea represented by the symbol 2. The ideas behind words and the words themselves are not equivalent.
- fijiaarone 3y ago
  Sounds like a pretty piss poor attempt at an absolute by someone who aspires to the label “sophomoric” in the most asinine and juvenile sense.
- vacuity 3y ago
  "1 + 1 = 2" has a commonly understood meaning that implies a system of axioms and theorems and whatnot so as to be an objectively true statement in that context. You're not being asked to interpret what someone means by "1 + 1 = 2"; you're being asked to examine that string of characters in the context of a specific system that you clearly understand.
pixl97 3y ago
>both you and I understand the idea that that string of symbols is conveying Until the moment we have to take each other to court, then suddenly two different trials with two different juries comes out with conflicting answers.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  What are you on about?
- vacuity 3y ago
  Yeah, I like to lie too.

naasking 3y ago

> Hence, 1+1=2 is just as relative as anything else we express through language The symbols are relative, the semantics are not.

nico 3y ago
Well, I can disagree with that, so what can you do then? If you can’t force everyone to agree on the same semantics, you can’t have absolute semantics Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, including absolute semantics, but that is your own personal subjective opinion (even if popular or accepted in the mainstream)
- naasking 3y ago
  I don't know what "absolute semantics" means. If you mean "objective semantics", then yes that's already objective. If you mean "universal semantics", well there's rarely universal agreement on anything, so I'm not sure why I should find the existence of a few contrarians persuasive.
  - nico 3y ago
    So you are essentially saying that you can keep your own ideas of “objective semantics” because you can dismiss people who disagree with you Which means you have a subjective definition of the meaning of “objective semantics” Objective doesn’t exist Everyone can assign their own meaning and not agree on what something means We are doing it right now on this thread You might say that there is an objective reality or truth regardless of whatever anyone else says, but you can’t prove that Your whole life experience is subjective, and you can never detach from it, you (nor anyone) can ever have an objective experience of anything You believing that there is some sort of objective anything is just your own subjective belief
    - vacuity 3y ago
      There are objective truths in the world. Or, to be more precise, there are objective truth's in each person's "world", their sense of reality. "1 + 1 = 2" is objectively true given a certain system of axioms and theorems that are generally understood. Yes, you need to include that context to be objective, but that doesn't make it invalid. Another objective fact that I can confidently say is that I can think. Does that mean I know I'm not living in a simulation? Of course not, but some way or another, my perception of the world includes my thoughts. I can't prove to you that I think, because Hacker News might just be glitching and sending this reply to you (or maybe it's the simulation overseers, ha!), but I know that I think. How? Because I think. Why? I don't know and I don't care that much. > You might say that there is an objective reality or truth regardless of whatever anyone else says, but you can’t prove that I get what you mean here, and I agree, but it's untrue that "1 + 1 = 2" can't be objectively true. It can, as long as certain semantics are applied. A sufficiently smart alien that understands what we mean by "1", "+", "=", "2", the set of integers, what a field is, and so on can only reasonably conclude the same. It also isn't objectively true that there are no objective truths in the sense of "racism bad". We can't know if it's objectively true, but given the context of, well, the world, maybe it is an objective truth. Not that it matters, since we can't know, but still. Although you could argue that those statements shouldn't be considered statements anymore.