Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JustAPerspective t1_irpgs23 wrote

Reply to comment by Material-Pilot-3656 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 03, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Any assertion is rooted in subjective observation... which is derived from the limited sensory input a human can experience, over a limited (cosmologically, speaking) span of time.

"Wrong", like "Right", is a temporary perspective rooted what one chooses to look at. For example, Obi Wan Ethics - If you hold to A Certain Point of View, it's ok to lie to a kid if it'll help ensure he's willing to murder his father.

To put it all another way, yes, most observations may be understood to be of temporary validity... Your future self may have different goals and/or intentions.

Which may mean the choices made when you think about what future "you" would prefer... are the ones you'll be glad to have made. Ain't a perfect guiding principle, always; can depend on how far ahead one goes.

2

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irpleb2 wrote

Thank you for your reply! The subjective perspective certainly is interesting. I do have a question for you though (just to understand how you think). Do you think that objectivity exists and it can be discovered? Objectivity being something that is always true and is always applies everywhere.

3

JustAPerspective t1_irs80qc wrote

"Always applies everywhere" has some prerequisites that don't seem to match speculated reality.

To amplify, the laws of physics warp around intense gravitic points like neutron stars & black holes. The words "Always" may not apply where space/time doesn't work that way, so "everywhere" becomes by definition an impossibility to either achieve or - when considers that the Observable Universe is in no way the limitations of the universe itself - verify on any level that would matter to a human lifespan.

The sun rising in the West is a "constant" only because it has been through human history; the briefest quantum flash on a cosmic timescale. Any number of celestial events/bodies could disturb Terra's orbit and make Sol a distant memory... and we'd never see it coming, because it could be many astronomical units away.

That which humans consider "Always/Forever" is usually an absurd concept in and of itself, rooted more in emotional bias than reason. Or, as Heinlein wrote, "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one."

Part of what this means is that humans seek to validate their emotional reactions rather than question whether they're accurate. Revisionist history, the internal adjustment of events to present oneself as more sympathetic and then believing in that story even to the point of denying physical evidence to the contrary... is a common event among the entitled.

​

If all of the above hasn't sent you clawing for an exit, here's the fundamental answer to what we believe was the intent of your inquiry: There is what is happening; what can be perceived, and the stories we make up to explain the quantum snapshots of cosmological and personal events we can even perceive... is really only a fraction of what's going on.

There are spectrums of light we can't see... that can blind us; ranges of sound we can't hear... that can deafen us; things we can't see, touch, smell, or hear that will kill us more thoroughly than a pissed-off sehlat... as Madame Marie Curie may have attested to.

Our point, be it ever-so-jumbled, is that of all the things we take in... and use to build our understanding of the universe?
Is just the barest, meanest fraction of what's actually going on.

So any conclusions we may come to are probably just flat out fucking wrong - we can't know enough to understand what's happening, either in the universe or even this world... emphasized by how most people can barely comprehend what's happening within themselves.

1

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irso8f9 wrote

Thank you for your response.

You seem to hold a epistemological skepticism philosophy. This is what I was suspecting after your consistent use of the word subjective, without mentioning objective reality. I understand this philosophy to some extent, because I had once held similar beliefs.

I would like to counter your objections to the words always and constant. There are a few things that are always real, however, no matter how you feel about it subjectively.

  1. Reality is always real. To suggest otherwise would be self-contradictory, as it would be saying that things that are real are not always real.
  2. Matter always is real. This has been determined through rigorous mathematical and scientific studies that have shone that nothing ever end, but may instead reform into something else.
  3. Life will always adapt to the environment around it, or will go extinct. No matter how subjectivity works, the principles of natural selection are eternal when it comes to life.
  4. Everything always follows the laws of physics, even if we don't know every law yet. You mention black holes and how they bend space-time, which is true, but these black holes bend space-time according to laws and processes that are constant, even if we don't know all of these laws yet.
  5. Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species. This is logically consistent and is fundamental to understand these animals.

I could list more truths that will always occur, no matter the time or place, but here are a few to show that truths can be forever. I am not simply hoping for things to last forever, and make logical jumps that are incoherent. This is not the case. There is objective reality, and there are things that are objective.

While I agree that no human may ever know or experience everything, this does not mean that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe. Do not think of knowledge as a state, but instead as a process that is continually learning. This is what science is all about, and what I believe we should be all about. We may never know everything, but if we understand that knowledge is a process, we can perfect that and understand the universe around us. This is how science has figured out so much. They are not simply making guesses based on subjective reality. They have understood the process of knowledge and have learned much truth because of it.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out the statement "our conclusions are probably flat out wrong" is inconsistent with the fact that this is your conclusion. Your conclusion is that conclusions regarding objective reality are probably wrong. However, if we were to apply that logic to you, I could dismiss everything that you say. After all, it's likely flat out wrong, so why should I believe you? This is my problem with ideas like epistemological skepticism, nihilism, and absurdism, since they are self-contradictory in and of themselves.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

1

JustAPerspective t1_irt22qo wrote

First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

  1. You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

  2. Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

  3. You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

  4. You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

  5. How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
    There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
    Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.

The question is... what will you choose to do next?

0

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irt8jeg wrote

>First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

I'm countering your objections because this is a philosophy subreddit. Here we have discussions and bring counterpoints to each other. This isn't out of malevolence or any other motivation. I simply am countering your claims. As I have said, feel free to ask questions and counter me. That is what this sub is for.

>Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

Where'd you get that name from? I've never called it that. Nor is anything I said talking about dead people. This seems like a straw man/ad hominem to make my points less valid.

>You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

Sorry but I did define reality. It is, and I quote myself, "things that are real". This could be real things that is perceived, and real things that are not perceived. Both are part of reality.

>Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

True. I'd love to see an exception to some of the 'always' things that I listed, though. I chose them because they are always true. I choose to believe things that I as a human even have the ability to believe. If we humans can't know something, then it's useless to everyone. Again, your view of knowledge seems to be like it's a state. I refuted this earlier. Knowledge isn't a thing, but a process or direction. I choose to continue the process of knowledge.

>You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

We can predict which living things will survive or not, though. Scientists have figured out which animals will go extinct in future decades due to climate change and similar effects that come from humans. Natural selection is not a vague generality, but a real rule that all living beings are affected by everyday. While I am no biologist, I do understand the basics of evolution and the rules that biology understands guide life.

>You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

Except we do know the laws of physics. All I was saying is that there are probably more laws that will be discovered one day. This is not to say that the laws of physics do always guide our universe. I'm sure there are more laws, but that would only be more evidence for my claim, not less.

>How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

I dragged sex into this because we are having a formal discussion on reality and truth. Also, I never said that all species reproduce by sex. Of course there are different modes of reproduction. I was very specific with my wording to be only talking about animals that reproduce through sex. I quote myself "Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species". I am quite clearly talking about animals that reproduce sexually. Not anything else. Also good insult about my Google search history. Really helps me want to listen to you more.

>Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Don't worry. I understand what I'm talking about. Also, it's interesting that you brought racism and race into this discussion. Personally, I think that science is free from racism because science isn't a thing but a way to gain knowledge. Maybe some of the people who started science were racist, but that doesn't invalidate what they said which was true. If anything it shows that they found truth despite their faults.

>Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

Now we are talking about the reality of time. Time is a weird thing because it is tied with space (aka space-time). You seem to be talking about the center of black holes (I'm assuming, but you were very vague here). While this does seem to be true, we are not in black holes, so this does not apply to us. We have never been in black holes, so this cannot apply to us. Also, it has taken me a certain amount of minutes to reply. No matter what, I can't go back in time and change that amount of time that I spent writing this reply. It will always be a certain amount of time, and since I did not write it in a black hole, time does apply to me.

>So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.
The question is... what will you choose to do next?

Well, hopefully I've shown that I'm not as horribly ignorant as you seemingly thought I was. If there is something that I said that you find incorrect, please counter my points. If you have any questions, please ask them. I'm happy to still discuss this with you. I wish you all the best and respect.

1