JohnSSM

Subjectivity wont allow it. You will have to put much energy into getting more and more precise in detail and for what? Its a fractal of sorts. You will run out of energy as you approach the same point, over and over from different subjective perspectives to find the same details...you cant know objective truth now matter how obvious it seems to you and any amount of consensus. I know what you are saying. And when my friends all believe that physics is mathematical jargon, I tell them, believe me, it does have its purpose. So does philosophy. We dont have the details. We have models of the details.

No, using your words, I do not see the meaning in them that you put there. Honestly.

So, how do you know how real something objectively is?

I dont understand what you are referring to now. I really want to understand you. PLease explain.

What question were you answering? Mentally unstable poeple mixed in with good faith argument discussions? Im sorry, you lost me.

GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. Can we agree to ask specific questions, give specific rebuttal, and move on to the next question? IF not, i cant have this conversation in good faith. Who did you talk to in the objectivity information department? Can I get that number please? We should discuss, in my opinion, how you see objectivity and subjectivity. We are all human subjects. We did not write the story. We think the story is about us understanding the story. But, ultimately, our experience could all be false, within the guidelines of the story. Who wrote the story of the universe? I dont know, but ONLY THEY will have an objective understanding of what we are experiencing. And they may not even exist. Alas, we are subjects in the story. IF you get the analogy which people learn in literature classes, you could finally understand that a subject cannot prove the story there are in. It's just that simple.

In my best effort to find a question, I have stated many times that humans can never know objective reality. If humans can never know objective reality, then they cant answer questions about existence with any certainty of finding any answer and get objective confirmation to objectively verify it for them. What is my evidence. Humans are subjective beings, with no knowledge of objective reality aside from what they can sense and understand. Cant take it any farther than that. And bringing it any closer doesn't change anything about that reality. No details will matter. Can you find any subjective reality, discovered by humans, with a complete confirmation from objective reality? MY point is. Find me anything which our understanding of, isn't subjectively reasoned.

Well, I Just asked you to ask me a specific question. Then you make another statement. I am confused again, I feel its best if I leave this discussion now. Will I be banned for avoiding a conversation with someone who refuses to answer and ask questions directly? Im sorry. I have no other means for discussion.

Faith arguments arent really scientific are they? Can I use faith arguments is a discussion about gravity? Who doesnt understand digestion? The person who says that may not even understand digestion. I dont see any relevance.

Im sorry, i dont follow. What is your question again? Id rather keep my communications very specific. I have allready tired to answer your pervious question, if I didnt, can you point out why I didnt more specifically? We can disagree on it's relevance, cant we? Nice...ask an uneducated person what they believe about special relativity. The range of answers is very interesting.

Ha, quite funny. Why are you leaving before reaching a consensus? I feel like you are calling me absurd. What else could your final words be a testament to? What other subjective conclusion could I come to? The forum has rules about personal attacks. If they have a different veil than I, I cant blame them or you for the insensitivity of your comments, and how they do seem to be done in ad hominem. I will not go there. But I will say, you agree to leave this conversation after proving nothing about the nature of existence. You might be interested in hearing my thoughts about free energy, knowing when you are wasting it, or not. Its guides all our decisions.

Well, my point is that proof is subjective. Anything humans have ever believed to be an "objective truth", is still just a subjective observation. IF everyone else agrees, thats great. You have a shared subjective observation, not an objective truth. Humans are subjective beings, not gods who might have objectivity if anyone could prove or disprove those subjective truths that many people share. I dont know of any gods with objectivity, and neither do I know of any humans with it either. So, getting back to the OP and every point made within it and every point ever made by any human or living system; any knowledge we have of reality is subjective. Unless you have talked to god lately. I must know.

Right, it is not cut and dry, The original statement was not cut and dry. It left room for many variables, which I see as assumptions. My statement was "you cannot prove to anyone" when I should have said, you cannot prove to everyone. And even if everyone at the party sees the demonstration and understands it, does not make HOLES objectively real. You have gotten every subjective opinion that exists, and that is not enough to claim objectivity. I guess this is philosophical clipclap to some, but to others, it's a more precise way of discussing actuality. I thought that is why we are all here. SO I assumed his comment was sarcastic, and it was. Everyone's version of subjectivity is basically a form of sarcasm. You don't have to explain it to me. You have to explain it to a child with autism. Lets say that the only people in the universe were you and an autistic child. You could not prove anything to anyone in the universe. IM making a larger point that maybe you dont consider to be a point. Im not sure. I want to understand. Einstein created all sorts of equations that prove his ideas of relativity, special and general. Do you think everyone can examine them long enough to understand the objective reality created by them? I am a person of at least average intelligence. Einstein cannot prove his theories to me. IF he cant explain them without math, than I cant understand them. Ive watched Feynman gives lectures about probability and quarks, using math. To him, he was finding proof. It did not exist for me at all.

A hole exists subjectively as soon as someone notices an inconsistency in the amount of entropy any surface may contain. That entropy can remove material, leaving an inconsistency in the smoothness of any surface. When it does, some subjective being may notice it and call it a hole. A hole now exists as a subject. The hole cannot be proved as an object and neither can any other physical subject or notion. IF we agree that "consensus subjectivity" does not equal objectivity, why are we even discussing objectivity and what is objectively real?

Agreed. Well said. We never described the people at the balloon party. They are all kids with developmental disorders who wouldn't know what a hole truly was if you stabbed them. You could do your demonstration out in the desert with no audience and prove as much. Do you want to truly discuss his statement? Since he left the balloon traits to variable interpretation, lets make the balloon out of steel.

I didnt have any proof to provide besides my own inferred observations. I have now posted what I needed to prove my inferred observations.

OK. But how could he actually prove that to anyone, at a balloon party with a pin? I dont understand how. It would take a long discussion to prove how you could actually prove anything to anyone. I say, it cannot be done. One person cannot prove something to be objective to any other person. So, his claim is a claim. I thought claims around here had to be backed up by at least, logical thought and not base assumptions about the nature of proof.

Should I take this as a serious point of discussion? That you can prove to anyone at a balloon party that holes exist, with a pin? I mean. Is it sarcasm, or an actual point of debate, because I believe the notion to be preposterous, that you can prove anything to anyone. Shall we discuss? I only asked because if the terms came from another subject, I could align the terms of that subject, with the terms of this subject, to find how they are connected or not.

I agree. Those terms fit well. Where else are they used? or did you model them yourself?

There is no proof in a subjective measurement. I can give some examples if you like. Is shadow a physical object? Is a hole a physical object? If the physics of the universe, has created an effect that we can notice and define or measure, then it is a physical object. That's all any subjective perspective is capable of. THIS IS AN EDIT. I wanted to reword this. If the physics of the universe, has created an effect that we can notice and define or measure, then it is a physical SUBJECT. Not an object. In all terms of reality, we have no objective proof of anything. Math could be said to be an objective truth, but it only solves the truths that we realize it can solve, through our subjective use of math. It is still limited by our subjectivity, when it comes to proving anything. If two or more subjective perspectives can notice and define it the same way, then evidence of objectivity has been found, but not proof of objectivity. Even if every subjective perspective that existed, agreed to the definitions, it would not confirm it's objective existence. Its as simple as asking, can everyone be wrong? I think the answer is yes. Well, the terms and context of the OP were very non defined. Being a psychologist, I wanted to mention schizophrenia to end the discussion of subjective reality being the measure for any reality right off the bat. But the discussion has learning value beyond that, to me.

After making another post about evolution and genes, where it was moved to speculations, probably because of a lack of citations and proof, I am going against something a moderator told me. I throw myself at the mercy of their final judgements, in light of references which verify my opinion that all genetic mutations that drive adaptation and evolution are not always random. I described the process as "inspiration". I didnt know any of the following info before I posted that thread. I had built up beliefs over 25 years of study, that all mutations were not random. Of course, these beliefs don't really conflict with Darwin, yet, only amend the ways in which genes COULD mutate. I offer the following citations that all genetic mutations are not random, this has been proven in experiments, with the results released in summer of 2020. "This suggests that evolution does not proceed by simple random processes, but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA." Full article below. (PDF) Evolution: Are the Monkeys’ Typewriters Rigged? (researchgate.net) "Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests. These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said." Full article below. Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) | Live Science Once again, I know the moderator told me emphatically, not to bring this up, but the last thread truly got off topic and devolved quickly. I feel it is important to spread word of these new confirmations about the nature of all mutations, and evolution itself.

Yes, the perspectives on Math play heavily into this discussion, yet my own knowledge cannot help me with mathematical understandings at this level. May I give you another citation? If you like, you can skip to part 12 called (A demonstration) on page 22. Microsoft Word - HelmholtzTutorialKoeln.doc (nku.edu) The entire article is full of math which I can only imagine, lends some type of quantifiable proof. As far as I can tell, the helmholtz machine does work to some high degree of objective reality. "The machine has clearly captured much of the world’s structure here: vertical bars appear with higher probability than horizontal bars, all patterns in the world are generated by the machine, and patterns not in the world occur with low probability and are mostly just a bit away from real patterns. Yet, as experience with these machines has shown (e.g. [6]), the machine hasn’t quite captured the world in what we might judge to be the most natural way, as shown by the unreal pattern 000010111 with probability 0.0412." It seems to be that the machine was 88 percent correct. And the question in my mind is..."If you had a mathematical solution that gave you correct answers 88 percent of the time, would it be a total failure, a partial success, or is it impossible for math to produce correct results 88 percent of the time? MY understanding of entropy really kicked in and I think I've got it nailed down fairly well, but any objective math, that I can understand, is always welcome. A message perhaps?

It would mean that something is objectively real, not subjectively reasoned. Yes, it makes sense for something not to exist, and defining non-existence also makes sense. Non existence could easily mean "something that is not objectively real". But existence also has MUCH to do with context. Do Oompa Loompas exist? Not in the world as actual beings, but they do exist in a book.

I just started with wikipedia. Helmholtz machine - Wikipedia

In another post, asking about free energy, someone mentioned Helmholtz, and I looked into Helmholtz and I discovered the Helmholtz machines, developed from his ideas that the brain is a "statistical inference engine". Does Helmholtz imply that a "statistical inference engine" can create models from observed functions and their noted effects without really knowing anything about the nature of the "process" being observed? Does the Helmholtz machine prove him right? Is he right? Thank you.