"Objective" Foundation for Morals

Originally posted by black beetle
Anyway; I 'm sure objectivity is non-existent

As usual, I feel I have not fully deciphered what you are saying.
Would you say that '2+2=4' is an objective fact? If not, is it subjective? Or is there another option?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual, I feel I have not fully deciphered what you are saying.
Would you say that '2+2=4' is an objective fact? If not, is it subjective? Or is there another option?

My option is that Math, as a language, is purely subjective😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So from Platonism (some time ago you were strongly thinking that the numbers have inherent existence instead of being merely mind-dependent constructions, and we had a conversation about this matter) you evolved to the Correspondence Theory -a belief/ definition/ theory etc is true if it corresponds to the given facts. So methinks you will enjoy Tractatus to the hilt;

Anyway; I 'm sure objectivity is non-existent
😵

"Anyway; I 'm sure objectivity is non-existent "

There are perceptions, but there is nothing perceived. Well, correct that. There is perceiving, but there is nothing perceived.

Originally posted by black beetle
My option is that Math, as a language, is purely subjective😵

Can you expand on that? Could someone else get 2+2=5?
Or are you saying the symbols I use are subjective? What about the concept? I math were developed in ancient Egypt and ancient China independently, surely both would have a concept equivalent to 2+2=4, so how do they get to the same result independently?

Originally posted by LemonJello
One thing I have often seen in this forum is the claim that God's existence is required for there to be "objective" morality. Of course, this is typically issued by a theist who is intent on undermining secular ethical accounts that claim objective foundations. And, of course, this theist typically operates under the assumption that his own account of m ...[text shortened]... on punishment and retribution.

I am looking for alternative viewpoints or interpretations....

God is love.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you expand on that? Could someone else get 2+2=5?
Or are you saying the symbols I use are subjective? What about the concept? I math were developed in ancient Egypt and ancient China independently, surely both would have a concept equivalent to 2+2=4, so how do they get to the same result independently?

Edit: “Can you expand on that?”

Sure thing, although we had this conversation in the past. You believe that “Math accurately predict and model nature's motion”, but this is false because the universe is not completely mathematical and isomorphic to a specific mathematical structure. In fact we are using quite well the language “Math” in order to decipher the various real but empty (existent and thus real, but lacking of inherent existence) phenomena that take place in our real but phenomenal (existent and thus real, but lacking of inherent existence) world, however our language “Math” per se is not at all objective. It is just a product of a consensus on the basis of our collective subjectivity;


Edit: “Could someone else get 2+2=5?”

No, but this ain't mean that objectivity is an existent observer. What would you think if some epistemologists were examining the nature of judgments about colour, and they pipe in “Wait, the red colour we are observing is objectively true regardless of the conditions that cause the existence of its redness” etc etc? I ‘m sure you know redness is existent solely to the observers with a cognitive apparatus capable of decoding this colour under specific circumstances. Again, I see nothing objective per se as regards redness;


Edit: “Or are you saying the symbols I use are subjective?”

Math is just another language of Ours; We created its alphabet, grammar and syntax axiomatically, and We use it according to the rules We invented and adopted;


Edit: “What about the concept? I math were developed in ancient Egypt and ancient China independently, surely both would have a concept equivalent to 2+2=4, so how do they get to the same result independently?”

The concept is the mapping of a specific landscape by means of Math, and this is the sole reason why our collective subjectivity accepts the concept 2+2=4 universally. However, due to the fact that this product is nothing but a mental construction of our collective subjectivity, it cannot be properly said that it ‘s objective;


It seems to me that we 'll hijack this thread. If you really want to discuss the subjectivity/ objectivity issue, kindly please feel free to start a new thread 😵

Originally posted by JS357
"Anyway; I 'm sure objectivity is non-existent "

There are perceptions, but there is nothing perceived. Well, correct that. There is perceiving, but there is nothing perceived.

We can neither perceive Reality holistically, nor generalize it so that all the sentient beings have the same perception about it. The sentient beings perceive fractals of the Unique Reality of the epiontic observer Universe that surrounds us, trying to create a “Meaning” during their struggle to embrace Chaos. Our reality will be ad infinitum different than dolphins’ or ants’ reality, and these three different realities will be ad infinitum all as real as it gets (to the cognitive apparatus of these three different sentient beings respectively, that is). In my opinion, each perception of reality of each sentient being, is strictly related to its cognitive apparatus alone. This is the reason why I ‘m talking about a Unique Reality (not about an Objective Reality) that is in fact perceived and understood differently by each different sentient being
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You believe that “Math accurately predict and model nature's motion”, but this is false because the universe is not completely mathematical and isomorphic to a specific mathematical structure.

How do you know this? It seems to me you would have to have made such a structure in order to know something like that, but doing so would violate the claim.

It is just a product of a consensus on the basis of our collective subjectivity;
I disagree. As I said, there is no need for communication in order to reach the consensus, therefore it cannot be a product of the consensus. The consensus is reached as a result of math not as a producer of math.

No, but this ain't mean that objectivity is an existent observer.
Not sure what that sentence means.

What would you think if some epistemologists were examining the nature of judgments about colour, and they pipe in “Wait, the red colour we are observing is objectively true regardless of the conditions that cause the existence of its redness” etc etc? I ‘m sure you know redness is existent solely to the observers with a cognitive apparatus capable of decoding this colour under specific circumstances. Again, I see nothing objective per se as regards redness;
Well I disagree. Redness is most definitely objective, and no, redness the concept does not require an observer with the cognitive apparatus capable of decoding it.

The concept is the mapping of a specific landscape by means of Math, and this is the sole reason why our collective subjectivity accepts the concept 2+2=4 universally.
So is the landscape objective?

However, due to the fact that this product is nothing but a mental construction of our collective subjectivity, it cannot be properly said that it ‘s objective;
Again, 'collective subjectivity' cannot exist prior to the math concept therefore it cannot be the producer.

It seems to me that we 'll hijack this thread. If you really want to discuss the subjectivity/ objectivity issue, kindly please feel free to start a new thread 😵
The thread is about subjective vs objective, surely this is exactly what the thread is about?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you know this? It seems to me you would have to have made such a structure in order to know something like that, but doing so would violate the claim.

[b]It is just a product of a consensus on the basis of our collective subjectivity;
I disagree. As I said, there is no need for communication in order to reach the consensus, therefore it can ...[text shortened]... ]
The thread is about subjective vs objective, surely this is exactly what the thread is about?[/b]

Edit: “The thread is about subjective vs objective, surely this is exactly what the thread is about?”

The thread is about whether the foundation of morals, as it is perceived by our fellow Christians over here who agree with our sonship, is objective or subjective. The issue you and I talk about is not the same, however if LemoJello is OK with it then I 'm fine too;


Edit: “How do… …claim.”

If Math is a property of the universe, which exact part of Math is this amongst the possible formal systems that yield contradictory theorems? In the physical world there is no consistency but phenomena-in-flux, and so we grasp orthogonal events and facts which we then evaluate them in a specific causal field as accurate or false regardless of whether we buy into any specific set of premises, whilst always these orthogonal events and facts are evaluated strictly solely by our cognitive apparatus. Do you think that somewhere out there exists inherently a specific branch of Math which is indeed the cornerstone Math that is also a property of the universe? Then kindly please expand, for I see merely axiomatic foundations based on even more abstract foundations, as is the case with any language;


Edit: “I disagree. As I said, there is no need for communication in order to reach the consensus, therefore it cannot be a product of the consensus. The consensus is reached as a result of math not as a producer of math.”

Math is nothing but a human invention. I 'm sure Metatron did not came down and gave Math to us as a gift of G-d. Methinks the consensus on the basis of our collective subjectivity is the sole producer of Math. We people simply agreed to accept specific axioms as true in specific contexts;


Edit: “Not sure what that sentence means.”

I mean, objectivity is a rare bird that I ‘m unable to spot'


Edit: “Well I disagree. Redness is most definitely objective, and no, redness the concept does not require an observer with the cognitive apparatus capable of decoding it.”

You are aware of the fact that your car is not made of cheese merely because you observed it –you observed it by means of using your 6 senses alone. The same with redness and with everything else you perceive. Kick a wall and you will see that your subjective feeling/ awareness is the same as every other person’s who did the same thing. Your knowledge regarding these matters is grounded on your “private information” alone, but these products of yours are also the same products as any other individual’s who acted like you and thus received the same “private information”. Therefore, although every individual has her/ his own private information, the consensus is guaranteed thanks to our collective subjectivity –that we mistakenly conceive it as objectivity;


Edit: “So is the landscape objective?”

No, it is a product of our collective subjectivity –that we mistakenly conceive it as objectivity, that is;


Edit: “Again, 'collective subjectivity' cannot exist prior to the math concept therefore it cannot be the producer.”

But Math is a human invention! Without our collective subjectivity, as it is the case with every language, it would be impossible to invent Math and to use it properly;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If Math is a property of the universe, which exact part of Math is this amongst the possible formal systems that yield contradictory theorems?

I didn't say math was property of the universe - instead we were discussion whether or not math could fully describe the universe, nor am I aware of any contradictory theorems.

Then kindly please expand, for I see merely axiomatic foundations based on even more abstract foundations, as is the case with any language;
You are confusing language and information that language is used to convey.

Math is nothing but a human invention.
As I pointed out, that cannot be the case, because math has been discovered multiple times independently.

I 'm sure Metatron did not came down and gave Math to us as a gift of G-d. Methinks the consensus on the basis of our collective subjectivity is the sole producer of Math.
As I keep pointing out, math can be done by and individual, it does not require a collective. And I fail to see the relevance of Metatron.

We people simply agreed to accept specific axioms as true in specific contexts;
And if one person does not accept that they are true? Does math fall apart? I think you are confused.

Kick a wall and you will see that your subjective feeling/ awareness is the same as every other person’s who did the same thing.
How do you know it is the same for everyone? Did you experience it?

No, it is a product of our collective subjectivity –that we mistakenly conceive it as objectivity, that is;
How can we create a collective with no objectivity. You are just talking nonsense.

But Math is a human invention! Without our collective subjectivity, as it is the case with every language, it would be impossible to invent Math and to use it properly;
😵
Once again, you are confusing language with what it conveys.

Originally posted by black beetle
We can neither perceive Reality holistically, nor generalize it so that all the sentient beings have the same perception about it. The sentient beings perceive fractals of the Unique Reality of the epiontic observer Universe that surrounds us, trying to create a “Meaning” during their struggle to embrace Chaos. Our reality will be ad infinitum different ...[text shortened]... ality) that is in fact perceived and understood differently by each different sentient being
😵

"This is the reason why I ‘m talking about a Unique Reality (not about an Objective Reality) that is in fact perceived and understood differently by each different sentient being "

There is a language trap in this statement. It is what I alluded to in my perception... no...perceiving statement.

When you talk about "a unique reality that is...perceived... differently by each sentient being" you point at a unique existent reality, like the elephant examined by the blind men. So you as much as admit that there is an objective reality, encountered differently by different beings depending on their sentience and access to this unique reality.

Originally posted by JS357
"This is the reason why I ‘m talking about a Unique Reality (not about an Objective Reality) that is in fact perceived and understood differently by each different sentient being "

There is a language trap in this statement. It is what I alluded to in my perception... no...perceiving statement.

When you talk about "a unique reality that is...perceived... ...[text shortened]... differently by different beings depending on their sentience and access to this unique reality.

No.
The differ perceptions of the differ sentient beings are always subjective due to the fact that they are caused solely from their cognitive apparatus. If the sentient beings are of the same species they share by and large the same subjective collectivity (objectivity), but when the species are different their mutual collective subjectivity (objectivity) is different. In my opinion, there are as many realities as sentient beings😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't say math was property of the universe - instead we were discussion whether or not math could fully describe the universe, nor am I aware of any contradictory theorems.

[b]Then kindly please expand, for I see merely axiomatic foundations based on even more abstract foundations, as is the case with any language;
You are confusing language a ...[text shortened]... th and to use it properly;
😵[/b]
Once again, you are confusing language with what it conveys.[/b]

Edit: “I didn't say math was property of the universe -instead we were discussion whether or not math could fully describe the universe, nor am I aware of any contradictory theorems.”

If Math is not a property of the universe, then the universe cannot be described in a 1:1 correspondence to a specific mathematic model. If this is the case, it is solely due to the fact that the universe is not completely mathematical and isomorphic to a specific mathematical structure and it follows that the universe cannot be fully described by Math.
On the other hand, if for some reason the universe can be fully described by Math, it can be described equally well by any other language and/ or science. What causal fields and which property makes Math so special?


Edit: “As I pointed out, that cannot be the case, because math has been discovered multiple times independently.”

Discovered by who? Human beings discovered it!


Edit: “ As I keep pointing out, math can be done by and individual, it does not require a collective. And I fail to see the relevance of Metatron.”

And English can be used by anyone. To speak the language properly means that you follow its rules and conceive its logical structure, and those thingies at every language are axiomatic and of course they are not in a 1:1 correspondence with objects of the physical world, as is the case with the language known as Math;


Edit: “And if one person does not accept that they are true? Does math fall apart? I think you are confused.”

If a person does not accept the mathematical axioms, it cannot use Math properly. Anything “true” in Math is true because it has been observed and was evaluated by Us as such, always on the ground of specific axioms;


Edit: “How do you know it is the same for everyone? Did you experience it?”

Yes, I spent several years when I was young kicking walls and thingies along with special friends of mine;


Edit: “How can we create a collective with no objectivity. You are just talking nonsense.”

Go back to Kant, check the whole line up to Wittgenstein and come back; even your definition about objectivity comes from a subject –you;


Edit: “Once again, you are confusing language with what it conveys.”

So, if Math is neither a property of the universe nor a human invention, what is it exactly?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No.
The differ perceptions of the differ sentient beings are always subjective due to the fact that they are caused solely from their cognitive apparatus. If the sentient beings are of the same species they share by and large the same subjective collectivity (objectivity), but when the species are different their mutual collective subjectivity (objectivity) is different. In my opinion, there are as many realities as sentient beings😵

That formulation avoids (what I see as) a language trap.

There is much in our language that perpetuates illusions and fools us into reifying useful fictions. I think this is for pragmatic reasons. "Look out, there's a lion behind you" is more efficient than "In my unique reality, there is the perception of a lion behind you, but you might want to check yours." 🙂

Originally posted by JS357
That formulation avoids (what I see as) a language trap.

There is much in our language that perpetuates illusions and fools us into reifying useful fictions. I think this is for pragmatic reasons. "Look out, there's a lion behind you" is more efficient than "In my unique reality, there is the perception of a lion behind you, but you might want to check yours." 🙂

Sure thing!

And I 'll make myself clear: methinks in fact whatever we see is just illusion-like cognitive appearances. I do not say this because I negate the experienced reality, but in order to point out that these appearances seem to arise from actual existing objects out there. Well, I join hands with Kant -and also with Dignaga, Dharmakirti and Nagarjuna amongst else: these appearances are real, however they do not exist in that impossible way😵