h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On second thoughts, I perhaps should say 'the reigning queen'.

<<...all mathematical truths are objective.>>

Then prove it. Prove - according to objective standards of proof - that these 'truths' are objective. Prove it without doubt, independent of the perceptions or conceptions of any or all human individuals. Prove it, withdraw the statement, or admit that it's axiomatic. Ah, I'm glad I got that off my chest...

[As mathematics is a human creation, demonstrating its independence of human perception or conceptions could prove tricky... ]

But don't take too long about it, as GTB is about to announce this week's victim any time now...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

> "Prove it without doubt"

Nope. Objective truth doesn't have to be 100% certain, any more than subjective truth. Beyond reasonable doubt has to suffice for both, and I don't see why I should be lumbered with harsher standards just because I disagree with you.

Any mathematical truth is accompanied by a valid proof, by definition of what a mathematical truth is. For a proof to be valid, it must be possible for anyone to validate it. Note further that computers can validate proofs (though not create them, yet), so it's independant of human perception.

Happy?

I still think we should call this "Democratic Philosophy".

It is an interesting thought though. If I have followed this properly the debate so far splits as follows:

In the red corner, PC, with - "Subjective perceptions cannot by definition determine an objective truth"

And in the blue corner, Lucinda (et al), with - "Subjective perceptions can establish an objective truth beyond a reasonable doubt"

Isn't this the heart of philosophical debate for the past few thousand years?

Madent: <>

Actually, PC says "Subjective perceptions cannot *verify* an objective truth." I must've made this correction three or four times in this thread alone. It's a very important distinction, in the context of this discussion, at least.

Lucinda: <>

I wish you'd said this earlier; our discussion has been entirely pointless. Just let me clarify, to ensure I've understood:

Objective truth is *probably* correct. If this isn't its definition, it's at least a significant attribute of objectivity, right?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Subjective consensus has to do for us for objective proof in everyday life. Why? Because if we sat around all day attempting to prove that we all exist, that we all perceive the same things etc. etc. etc. we'd never get _anything_ done at all. Therefore I would seem sensible to come up with something which is a workable, generally useful definition for everyday life and leave the specifics to the people who actually need to bother themselves with the specifics.

However, this again causes some problems... firstly, it increases the general level of ignorance about the nature of reality because it encourages people not to bother thinking about what's really going on. Secondly, it is possible (if unlikely) that one of those specifics is going to leap up and bite you on the bottom one day when you're least expecting it.

So by arguing about things like this philosophers are really attemping to safeguard the future of the human species. Isn't that nice of them?

Hi guys. Been gone for the last few months... just skimming through. Sorry to see Colonel Sellers left; anyone want to fill me in on what happened to tick him off? I'd like to get his email if at all possible; FFFF sprang out of some early discussions I had with him back in the days when the Guide was Good, and I wouldn't mind being able to touch base with him now and then.

Twophlag, I'd be happy to put you in touch with the Colonel, though I'm not willing to just publicize his email address, of course. If you'd like to email me, [email protected], I'll send your contact info to him, and he can take it from there. Does that sound alright?

Meanwhile, I have some FFFF business to attend to... ahem, IT'S TUESDAY!

Yep, it's time for the drawing. The unproven axioms that went into this weeks selection included: That the 10 shilling coin I flipped, repeatedly, is fair. That the lists I'm working from are complete, according to some appropriate definition. That the mathematics of probability provide methods by which to make choices which approach "randomness" to a sufficent degree for our purposes. That I am able to recall, and correctly apply probability mathematics. That this website, and all of us here, exist.

Actually, I'm not sure that last assumption entered into it. What ever happened to those monks who used to chant that the Universe is just a figment of its own imagination?

Ok, so... this week's winner...


...only dropped by the thread to say , but that counts, and he's in the hat, and he got drawn...


Doctor Gonzo, I hope you're still reading here, because...


Congratulations, Doctor, you're a...


Reverse Solipsist!!!


Ask Lucinda what the zark that means; I think he invented it.

Actually, why not follow the link Lucinda mentioned when he suggested Reverse Solipsism for the hat: A491681

I know *I'm* gonna be clicking on that link, just as soon as this message posts...

MaW wrote <>

My point exactly! Why don't we just drop the fruitless search for objectivity, and content ourselves with something workable. As you say, this is sufficient for normal everyday life. We don't *need* objectivity or certainty, just something that works most of the time.

Who are these people who "need to bother themselves with the specifics"? I can think only of philosophers (and perhaps FFFF members?) I suppose there could be others...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I have to start defining stuff? I'm going to do it with functions to annoy non-programmers...

Subjective_Truth(Observer,Rigour) := statements {rigour}, that a named subjective observer observes to be true.

Objective_Observer := a hypothetical observer which can make (at least) any observation that any subjective observer can make.

Objective_Truth(Rigour) := Subjective_Truth(Objective_Observer,Rigour)

Total_Rigour implements Rigour { "that are definately true" }

Sensible_Rigour implements Rigour { "that I am confident beyond any reasonable doubt are true" }

Lax_Rigour implements Rigour { "that I am 99% confident are true" }

Pragmatic_Rigour implements Rigour { "that are either true or else the universe has some property which is so inimical to logical thought that I can discard it on grounds of pragmatism" }

--

Objective_Truth doesn't exist, but neither does Subjective_Truth, so I don't care.

--

Sorry to not define my terms properly - but neither did you, so

"Lord [INSERT NAME HERE]" invented reverse solipsism - I just copied and pasted...

I was thinking mainly of quantum physicists. Why? Because the little I've read on the subject suggests that at that level of reality, things are so small and sensitive that the very act of perceiving them changes things, so they really need a way to get objective information, otherwise how will they ever know what things are like when they're not looking at them.

There is of course a theory (or maybe even several of them in variations) which says that things don't actually exist when nobody's looking at them, or that if they do they exist in some indeterminant state. I suspect that such a theory is unprovable, and if we ever do find out what things do when we're not looking at them, we'll probably crack the secrets of faster-than-light travel, perpetual motion, immortality, time travel and more simultaneously.

Therefore I suspect finding out such a thing would be impossible.

All I can say PC is that before "verifying" something, you have to "determine" what you are going to "verify". My apologies if I have over simplified, but I don't think you can verify something without deciding what to verify.

This is actually quite fun.

You can't verify without making a choice. Making a choice requires some assumptions to be made (or axioms if you will). Having made a choice you can then verify on the basis of your assumptions.

Reverting to an earlier (philosophical) position and making a different choice, requires a different set of assumptions (maybe?). Then that allows the second theory to be verified on the basis of the assumptions.

Interestingly this is the problem that science sometimes faces. Two (or more) equally valid theories explaining a phenomena, each one verifiable within certain limits. It is only when you can go beyond those limits in collecting data or through some new "original" thinking that somehow validates both theories, that you eventually reach a conclusion.

Madent: <<...before "verifying" something, you have to "determine" what you are going to "verify".>>

Well, yes, but I don't think the choice of *what* to verify alters the argument. Someone (it could be you or someone else, it doesn't matter) suggests a hypothetical objective truth. Theirs is the choice you identify, and there certainly *is* a choice.

Madent: <>

Possibly, but not necessarily. One (useful) assumption we *can* make is that someone has identified a claim/statement which they suspect may be objectively true. The means used to identify that claim (i.e. the choice) has no effect on whether or not that claim is objectively true, as far as I can see...

Then we try to "verify" it - that is, we attempt to confirm whether it's objectively true (or not). It is here that my contribution comes into play. I don't believe that humans are equipped to (objectively) verify objective truth(s) of any kind. [I exclude things we *define* to be true, such as "1+1=2".]

Madent: <>

I think so too. [But I have a terrible image of other readers eating their own body parts to avoid death by philosophy. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

mmmm... own body parts....

It appears reverse solipsism isn't as intriguing as objectivity. Perhaps it's this "everything exists except me" attitude that puts people off?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Obviously Doctor Gonzo is caught in some indeterminate state while he figures out how to post messages on H2G2 if he thinks he doesn't exist.

Reverse solipsism does seem a fairly depressing state to be in...

In a desparate attempt to inject a little excitement into reverse solipsism, let's return to its definition. Normal solipsism is where only I exist, and the Universe is a figment of my imagination. So presumably the reverse is where I am a figment of the Universe's imagination.

OK, so this means that everything exists except me, which has its funny side, but it also means that the Universe is a conscious and thinking entity - it is able to imagine me! - which offers a greater potential for entertainment, I think.

But it isn't just me! As I see it - and I don't exist, which must give me *some* authority - *no* individual exists, only the collective entity we recognise as the Universe.

This is Gaia multiplied almost beyond belief. This is the biggest ants nest you can comprehend. The intelligence of all those individually non-existent creatures, planets and gas clouds (yeah, well ), gathered together to create the Universe as an emergent entity... This is bigger even than Beeblebrox's ego. Aren't we drawing close to the concept of deity here?

In conclusion, reverse solipsism is obviously just a variant of pantheism.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"