Can God's Existence be Proven Subjectively but not Objectively?

[mosassam]

You got it--but I would not say "has no validity"--but "uncertain validity".

Thanks for the post Rade, but I've got to do some nitpicking (with a view to clarity and not one-upmanship (re: Heusdens))
For me 'validity' is either ON or OFF and never "Uncertain". A 'subjective truth' has NO validity because to communicate an experience cannot be the same as having the experience (you will never precisely experience the same thing as me because you're not me, but we may agree on some experiences - an 'objective truth')

There are only two ways to "know" any"thing" (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside the thing.

I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

If you seek to "know" any"thing" from outside as an observer, the knowledge you gain is "Uncertain Knowledge", which is the way of Science.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If you want to find "Certain Knowledge" look inside yourself,

Certain Knowledge = Subjective Truth

ask yourself if you exist (not if you are the ONLY thing that exists, just DO I EXIST). Let me know what you find.

When I'm with my lover I KNOW we both exist, when I'm jamming with other musicians I KNOW we all exist, when I'm having a great lesson with my students I KNOW we all exist. The only time uncertainty exists is when I use my Rational Mind to determine the limits of my existence. It seems obvious (to me at least) that most of the posts and threads on this forum are made by those who define Humanity through the Rational Mind (how else can you "define"?). To imagine I am all that exists seems, to me, a sickness beyond words, but to explain this position (explain = Rational Mind) means I have to become that which sees no other than itself (the Rational Mind).
I think, therefore I exist.
I feel, therefore I am.

 

[heusdens]

Since when and by whom? The 'world' means the 'universe'?

It has been used by many philosophers.

Who said the point was whether the world (universe) existed or not?

The point was wether there were absolutes.

So the definition makes it true?

maybe it only takes Logic, BUT...

...you say that the word "eternal" (meaning - for all Time) "is by the way not a statement about time itself". What were we saying about Logic?

It is meant to say that it is independent of how we perceive or measure time.

Ever heard of the word Dogma?
PS: Maybe Materialism "is" a dead end!

What is "dead" about materialism?

It's the only working philosophical basis for material sciences.

And the physical sciences don't declare materialism wrong, but they only show that materialism is right.

For instance GR has lead to the vision that spacetime and matter are not separate from each other but intimately linked to each other.
Materialism already acknowledged this fact before einstein developed general relativity.

 

[heusdens]

I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

The universe.

 

[Rade]

Originally Posted by mosassam:
I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

The universe.

Yes. It would appear true that the human mind can "know" two categories of the concept "inside": (1) being inside self, and (2) inside universe--the mind can grasp that it is inside both at the same point in time, a type of superposition of being. And such an understanding must then be "certain knowledge" (eg, to hold as Descarte, the argument of the Cognito ergo sum--extended to "and because I am, I am within some"thing" = universe) and outside the methods of Science, for Science allows only "uncertain knowledge" of existence. Now it then seems that if we form the dialectic to hold that mind can grasp that the superposition set of becoming {inside self + inside universe} = certain knowledge of what exists, then solipsism is falsified, for the solipsist finds that nothing exists or is real but self (that is, the solipsist finds the universe within self not as a superposition of self and universe becoming). But perhaps I error in my thinking.

 

[mosassam]

The universe.

Don't you mean the 'world'?

 

[mosassam]

It has been used by many philosophers.

Who? and when did they use it?

The point was wether there were absolutes.

Not at all. The point was whether saying the "world(?!?) is eternal" was a fact or utter gibberish.

It is meant to say that it is independent of how we perceive or measure time.

Eternity is independent of how we perceive or measure time?

 

[mosassam]

Originally Posted by mosassam:
I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

It would appear true that the human mind can "know" two categories of the concept "inside": (1) being inside self, and (2) inside universe--the mind can grasp that it is inside both at the same point in time, a type of superposition of being.

I'm struggling here. When you say "inside the universe", do you mean it in the same way as being "inside" a house? Or do you mean "from within the being of the universe"?

And such an understanding must then be "certain knowledge" (eg, to hold as Descarte, the argument of the Cognito ergo sum--extended to "and because I am, I am within some"thing" = universe) and outside the methods of Science, for Science allows only "uncertain knowledge" of existence.

You really do seem to be referring to 'inside' as meaning "inside the bathroom" and not 'from within the being of". I don't mean to be harsh but the argument above seems so full of holes that I'm hoping you're having a joke that I don't quite get. To refer to it as "certain knowledge" does actually make me chuckle ("and because I am, I am within some"thing" and because that "thing" 'is', it is within some"thingelse" and because that "thingelse" is...infinite regress I believe!, something to be avoided at all times (or so I'm told)

Now it then seems that if we form the dialectic to hold that mind can grasp that the superposition set of becoming {inside self + inside universe} = certain knowledge of what exists,

Errm?

then solipsism is falsified, for the solipsist finds that nothing exists or is real but self (that is, the solipsist finds the universe within self not as a superposition of self and universe becoming).

If Solipsists are serious about Solipsism how was it ever communicated in the first place. The fact that Solipsism exists falsifies it! (no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it...)

But perhaps I error in my thinking.

I know the feeling.
(Seriously though, please review post #91 and give me your thoughts)

 

[heusdens]

Eternity is independent of how we perceive or measure time?

The world is said to be eternal in the sense that matter is not createable or destructable. Space and time do not exist separate from matter.

 

[mosassam]

The world is said to be eternal in the sense that matter is not createable or destructable. Space and time do not exist separate from matter

.

So, you believe that the universe has always existed. If "matter is not creatable", it has not been derived from anything else. If we assume matter exists we must assume that it has always existed and that it is not a derivative of "something" else. No Big Bang, no beginning to the universe, yet in one of your posts you state your belief that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. You present it as an indisputable scientific fact and defend it quite vigourously. So, which is it? Eternity or 13.7 billion years old? Matter that was not created or matter derived from a previously existing state?
Please answer both these questions in full, I've noticed you have a habit of answering only that which suits you.

 

[heusdens]

So, you believe that the universe has always existed. If "matter is not creatable", it has not been derived from anything else. If we assume matter exists we must assume that it has always existed and that it is not a derivative of "something" else. No Big Bang, no beginning to the universe, yet in one of your posts you state your belief that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. You present it as an indisputable scientific fact and defend it quite vigourously. So, which is it? Eternity or 13.7 billion years old? Matter that was not created or matter derived from a previously existing state?
Please answer both these questions in full, I've noticed you have a habit of answering only that which suits you.

The relative age of the our local part of the universe (which we observe and which theoretically is much much larger) is 13.7 billion years, that is since the end of inflation.

Matter transforms indefinately, so to say that there was a previous material state does not contradict the fact that matter is uncreatable and indestructable.

And another thing -- the universe at large does not exist.

The reasoning for that is that you can not define objective relations for the universe at large, since there is nothing that is really apart and outside of it.

An apple exist to me, because the apple has a separate reality from me, and I am a separate reality from the apple. The apple and me are objectively related.

Same for all other things we know of.

The universe however is not objectively related since by definition there is no outside and separate thing from the universe, and the universe is not a separate and outside reality to any other thing.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual. When a group of people agree on something we can say that this constitutes an 'objective truth', BUT ONLY FOR THAT GROUP. Other groups may have other objective truths. The group called Scientists may say that their objective truth has been experimentally proven but quantum theory seems to be indicating that the experiments scientists choose to perform reflect "who they are" (ie: subjective truth). Also, Rade's quote above ( SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X]) also reflects the shaky nature of scientific objective "truth". Science, like religion (and most adults for that matter) has a hard time saying "I don't know". Fully realising and accepting that "I don't know" (rather than groping desperately around in the dark for some kind of certainty, be it religious or scientific) may be the ultimate objective truth.
As for "absolute truth", if it exists I have a feeling it may well be something we cannot communicate, not even to ourselves.
(or not )

I like this. It's honest. It is okay to admit that we don't know as much as we might have thought before.

 

[mosassam]

The relative age of the our local part of the universe (which we observe and which theoretically is much much larger) is 13.7 billion years, that is since the end of inflation.

And as Job pointed out - the universe was created this morning when he got up. Both of these "ASSERTIONS" can be viewed as valid. You seem absolutely convinced that your "ASSERTION" 'is' true and you seem to present it as a fact when it is patently nothing of the sort. I do wish you could see this.

Matter transforms indefinately, so to say that there was a previous material state does not contradict the fact that matter is uncreatable and indestructable.

As usual, you don't answer the questions asked of you, you read the information to suit yourself and then answer accordingly. Nowhere and at no time did I mention a "previous material state", this construct belongs to you, you have foisted it on me then used it to answer a point I wasn't making.

An apple exist to me, because the apple has a separate reality from me, and I am a separate reality from the apple. The apple and me are objectively related.

Same for all other things we know of.

The universe however is not objectively related since by definition there is no outside and separate thing from the universe, and the universe is not a separate and outside reality to any other thing

If the apple isn't separate from the universe, and I'm not separate from the universe, HOW AM I SEPARATE FROM THE APPLE?. Please give this question some genuine consideration rather than blithely spew out the dogma of Materialism

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Accept what?

My statement reflect a philosophical notion, which happens not to be in conflict with science, that the world itself is eternal (because matter is).

It is not a belief, but a conclusion based on true premises.

I don't believe you. I won't until you can prove it to me rather than try to convince me, but I don't discredit the possibility. I agree partly with you in that it is possible that the universe has always existed, however I don't conclude that it has as you conclude. Personally, I really don't care about that subject enough to believe one way or another. The reason why I don't care is because concluding either way doesn't change the way I feel from day to day. I'm sorry if I've given you a hard time, and I'm sure it is subjectively true to you that the universe has existed and will exist forever. It is okay to believe things, it's not like I think less of you, I'm just trying to show you that it is a belief. If you believe that I'm wrong, then it is okay, because it is true to you, and if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

 

[mosassam]

I like this. It's honest. It is okay to admit that we don't know as much as we might have thought before

It being "okay to admit" wasn't really my point. Science and religion don't realize their own ignorance and neither of them realize that the days of Aristotle's either/or, true/false perception of reality may be coming to an end. Uncertainty may be soon accepted as a far 'deeper' reality than the answers science and religion have given us so far. Science and religion seem to be manifestations of our desparate need to avoid fear of the unknown. Maybe, once we accept the true nature of our uncertain existence, we will evolve beyond the pettiness of different "beliefs", be they scientific or religious.
Maybe not

 

[heusdens]

I don't believe you. I won't until you can prove it to me rather than try to convince me, but I don't discredit the possibility. I agree partly with you in that it is possible that the universe has always existed, however I don't conclude that it has as you conclude. Personally, I really don't care about that subject enough to believe one way or another. The reason why I don't care is because concluding either way doesn't change the way I feel from day to day. I'm sorry if I've given you a hard time, and I'm sure it is subjectively true to you that the universe has existed and will exist forever. It is okay to believe things, it's not like I think less of you, I'm just trying to show you that it is a belief. If you believe that I'm wrong, then it is okay, because it is true to you, and if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

Well in some way it is a belief, because the fact is we would not measure an eternal time interval anyway. The infinity/eternity of the world can only be inferred from a metaphysical thought. At least it can be argued that the world/universe does not have a boundary.

One other things worth mentioning and which would render the whole question meaningless is that one can argue that the world (universe, all there is) does not exist in the objective way, since there are no objective relations for the world in total. That conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there are no objects outside, apart and independent of the world. In that way, no objective relations can exist between the world (universe) itself and something strictly outside, independent and apart from it.

I agree with you that thinking either way (finitiy/infinity of the world) is something that can not be scientifically tested.
And for all that it is worth, it does not matter for our position here and now.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Well in some way it is a belief, because the fact is we would not measure an eternal time interval anyway. The infinity/eternity of the world can only be inferred from a metaphysical thought. At least it can be argued that the world/universe does not have a boundary.

One other things worth mentioning and which would render the whole question meaningless is that one can argue that the world (universe, all there is) does not exist in the objective way, since there are no objective relations for the world in total. That conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there are no objects outside, apart and independent of the world. In that way, no objective relations can exist between the world (universe) itself and something strictly outside, independent and apart from it.

I agree with you that thinking either way (finitiy/infinity of the world) is something that can not be scientifically tested.
And for all that it is worth, it does not matter for our position here and now.

But since we can't know if there are or aren't things outside the universe (such as thoughts, or the mind in general, or God), you can't state it as a fact.

 

[heusdens]

But since we can't know if there are or aren't things outside the universe (such as thoughts, or the mind in general, or God), you can't state it as a fact.

You know better then that mr. Johny trigonometry.

It is just by definition the case that there is nothing 'outside' the universe , since that is already included in 'universe'.

This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge as such (in which case you might be right) but with abstract thought.

Universe is an abstract concept of thought, which by definition includes everything. For that reason, there is nothing outside the universe. And for that same reason, outside of our mind, this concept does not exist in reality, it is forever empiracally unknowable, since it has no objective existence.

If you are not content with that, or use another definition, then just change the name of your concept.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So you mean that by your definition, if God exists, then he exists within the universe? Then you say that the universe is just a thought? Then you go on to reiterate that you think the definition of the universe includes everything including God. I don't agree that God exists within the universe because I go by the cannonical defintion of the universe. My definition of the universe is all of space-time and all of matter-energy contained inside, along with the four fundamental forces. The definition of God that I go by is a being of infinite knowledge and understanding that doesn't exist in space-time, and isn't made from matter-energy, and perceives all the events within the universe from all points in the universe at all angles of view at all periods of time. You can think of God as the "highest dimensional being possible", able to see the whole picture at once because he doesn't soley exist within the picture alone. So by my definitions, God can't exist soley within the universe alone, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. It seems you have different definitions, and that is our problem here, that's all. If only you could accept that this is the problem...

I'm sorry if I don't appease your concept of reality, but then again I must in some way, because you've dreamed me into existence anyway. So think about it, you put me here to tell you these things, so that means that your higher self could see that you would need help because you'd get stuck in a rut. Maybe you should trust yourself and consider what I'm saying.

 

[heusdens]

So you mean that by your definition, if God exists, then he exists within the universe? Then you say that the universe is just a thought? Then you go on to reiterate that you think the definition of the universe includes everything including God. I don't agree that God exists within the universe because I go by the cannonical defintion of the universe. My definition of the universe is all of space-time and all of matter-energy contained inside, along with the four fundamental forces. The definition of God that I go by is a being of infinite knowledge and understanding that doesn't exist in space-time, and isn't made from matter-energy, and perceives all the events within the universe from all points in the universe at all angles of view at all periods of time. You can think of God as the "highest dimensional being possible", able to see the whole picture at once because he doesn't soley exist within the picture alone. So by my definitions, God can't exist soley within the universe alone, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. It seems you have different definitions, and that is our problem here, that's all. If only you could accept that this is the problem...

Nope.

All what I wanted to make clear that is that both God and Universe (as All of existence, all matter in all space and time) are merely subjective notions, and have no objective relations.

I was not stating God exist within the Universe, since that it simply not how God is defined.

Your definition of God as not being in spacetime (which is: no dimension at all) and at the same time in the highest dimension seems to me a contradiction in terms.
How does God 'perceive' anything, if God is non-material and has no sense-organs?

Since I assume you acknowledge to the idea that God supposedly created the universe, of what was God thinking or conscious before that, and how does 'thinking' or 'creating' mean anything, if they involve no time, no matter and no space?

Fact is that your God can not be objectively defined, since God is not an object nor has an object. It's only place is in the mind, and nowhere else.

I'm sorry if I don't appease your concept of reality, but then again I must in some way, because you've dreamed me into existence anyway. So think about it, you put me here to tell you these things, so that means that your higher self could see that you would need help because you'd get stuck in a rut. Maybe you should trust yourself and consider what I'm saying.

I think it was your dream, not mine.

I'm sorry to say, but I can not make any sense of what you say.

And I'm in no need of help.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

eh, I just figured you're keen on solipsism.

I don't think of everything as material, so it makes sense to me. I don't expect you to understand my definitions. I agree that God can only be defined subjectively. Of course, his absolute definition isn't knowable with certainty to us if he absolutely exists. Then again, many people can agree on the same definition too, just like many people can agree on a verdict in a court, but this is a case where there will always be a difference of opinion throughout the world. The definition of the universe seems to be on more scientific ground to me though, so I'm betting that there is less debate over this definition, and quite possibly much more people go by the same definition in comparison with the definition of God.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I'm interested in how you make sense of things Heusdens. It seems to me that you separate things between the mind and the physical world. I must ask, what is more "real" to you? the physical world, or the world of the mind?

 

[Evo]

I have to ask why people keep referring to a single god. Monotheism is relatively new in the human timeline. What makes you think that there could only be a single god? If a "god" created the universe, what makes you think it's still in existence? Maybe the effort to create the universe killed it.

Who has proof that there is a single god as opposed to the majority of religions citing multiple gods?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You know better then that mr. Johny trigonometry.

It is just by definition the case that there is nothing 'outside' the universe , since that is already included in 'universe'.

Universe is an abstract concept of thought, which by definition includes everything. For that reason, there is nothing outside the universe. And for that same reason, outside of our mind, this concept does not exist in reality, it is forever empiracally unknowable, since it has no objective existence.

Okay, there's a couple things you say that confuse me. First of all, you state this definition of the universe, but don't explicitly say that it is strictly your definition, which implies that it is an objective definition, especially when you put the words "by definition" in boldface. This appears as a a logical argument at first, which is deceiving. Then you make another claim: "the universe is an abstract concept of thought". I'm just not sure what you mean by this, because can't one argue that all words are abstract concepts of thought? Regardless, I don't see how if it is merely just 'an abstract concept of thought', then one can conclude that nothing is 'outside' of it. I don't follow the logic there, why does one dictate the next?

Secondly, you say that due to the deceivingly objective definition of the universe that you propose, the universe is 'outside of our minds' too. Well I just got to ask, how can you argue that something is 'outside of our minds' when you know what that something is. It's like saying that we can't know what a triangle is. When you state what it is in your refutation of our knowledge of it, you nullify your argument. Similarly, how is a triangle non-objective knowledge? Because it is 'an abstract concept of thought'?

Then in your reply, you change your appearance in the debate of this subject. What I mean is, you say this:

All what I wanted to make clear that is that both God and Universe (as All of existence, all matter in all space and time) are merely subjective notions, and have no objective relations.

I was not stating God exist within the Universe, since that it simply not how God is defined.

Which looks to me that you're now arguing something else that is similar, but not the same as what you were arguing above. On the one hand, I agree with this quote (although it is a different argument as before), and on the other I disagree. Certainly, we can all know what a triangle is objectively as easily as we can know what a pencil is. Neither the pencil or the tiangle have to exist in front of our eyes (physically) in order for us to know what they are. Likewise we know what grass is, and we don't have to be in its physical presence to know what we're talking about. These are just the words that we english speaking humans (you and I) connotate with these "things" wether they are 'abstract concepts of thought' or not. Surely, words work because we can communicate thoughts by their use because we have agreed on a common ground on which to relate concepts. Surely you know what I'm talking about when I say the word grass, although you may have a different image in your mind as to what it "looks" like, but you know what I'm referring to. Likewise, you know what I'm talking about when I say the word God, although you may have a different "image", or "understanding" or "definition" in your mind than what I have. Do you see what I'm saying here? There is a level upon which we both have complete knowledge, and it allows us to communicate thoughts, although we both may interpret those arrangements of words in our own ways as we relate them with our own experiences. So, surely you know what I'm referring to when I say the word universe, even though you may go by a different--more in depth--definition. So there is a level on which we know objectively, and there is a level on which we can only know subjectively. Our repretoire of 'abstract concepts of thought' aren't mutually exclusive, but there is some overlaping. Speaking in the language of sets, our sets have an intersection where we both share objective relations. Bringing this back to the ideas of subjective, objective, and absolute truth, we might look at those 'concepts' or 'relations' or 'ideas' or 'definitions' which are common to all sets as objective truths. It goes without saying that the amount of subjective truths are much larger for each set. The absolute truth is still an undefined set in this exploration as far as I understand, and perhaps we could say that objective truth is a subset of it, but I'm not sure about that.

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I don't fully agree with you as I did above, and maybe I understand what you did too, if it was anything like what I just did.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I have to ask why people keep referring to a single god. Monotheism is relatively new in the human timeline. What makes you think that there could only be a single god? If a "god" created the universe, what makes you think it's still in existence? Maybe the effort to create the universe killed it.

Who has proof that there is a single god as opposed to the majority of religions citing multiple gods?

My apologies for not being politically correct.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual. When a group of people agree on something we can say that this constitutes an 'objective truth', BUT ONLY FOR THAT GROUP. Other groups may have other objective truths.

The group called Scientists may say that their objective truth has been experimentally proven but quantum theory seems to be indicating that the experiments scientists choose to perform reflect "who they are" (ie: subjective truth). Also, Rade's quote above ( SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X]) also reflects the shaky nature of scientific objective "truth". Science, like religion (and most adults for that matter) has a hard time saying "I don't know". Fully realising and accepting that "I don't know" (rather than groping desperately around in the dark for some kind of certainty, be it religious or scientific) may be the ultimate objective truth.
As for "absolute truth", if it exists I have a feeling it may well be something we cannot communicate, not even to ourselves.
(or not )

I think this is a very good way to summerize things. I'd have to say that science can be fully objective. The reason is becauce probabilities are objectively true, since they are experimentally verified. If you flip a coin enough, it truly doesn't matter what anybody thinks will happen, since the outcome after many tosses is experimentally verifiable to be in accord with science's probability distribution. Science predicts objective things, wether they are probability distributions or things more specific. As far as the principle that the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames, it has been experimentally verified time and again. I think I see what you're getting at though. The idea that if you keep seing black crows, is it okay to conclude that all crows are black? Well, maybe if we are careful about the use of science, then we'd not conclude that, and we'd simply keep tabs of all the colors of crows that we find, and eventually we'd have an objectively true probability that we could work with.

 

[heusdens]

I'm interested in how you make sense of things Heusdens. It seems to me that you separate things between the mind and the physical world. I must ask, what is more "real" to you? the physical world, or the world of the mind?

What do you mean with "more real"?

The world can be known with the mind only, yet on the other hand this does not infer that the mind itself is primary.

So, basically the world in primary sense is just material, and consciousness is secondary. The phenomena of consciousness can be satisfactory explained in terms of matter (it is just a different perspective on the same phenomena) and the material world existed long before there were living organisisms and consciouss living beings.

I don't see any problem with this worldview.

 

[heusdens]

Okay, there's a couple things you say that confuse me. First of all, you state this definition of the universe, but don't explicitly say that it is strictly your definition, which implies that it is an objective definition, especially when you put the words "by definition" in boldface. This appears as a a logical argument at first, which is deceiving. Then you make another claim: "the universe is an abstract concept of thought". I'm just not sure what you mean by this, because can't one argue that all words are abstract concepts of thought? Regardless, I don't see how if it is merely just 'an abstract concept of thought', then one can conclude that nothing is 'outside' of it. I don't follow the logic there, why does one dictate the next?

The point is there are various definitions, and to avoid the confusion, I made explicit what definition of the concept universe I had in mind.

About abstract concepts, and reality: see it like this. Let us in imagination take a concept of a material object that is handy to poor liquids in for drinking. Now this is a concept as such, and has as yet no bearing on anything that exists in reality.
But on further inspection of reality itself, we can check not only that this concept can relate to something in reality, but in fact does: my coffee cup!

But I could also have thought of something - a concept - that could not and does not exist in reality. A square circle for instance. It's definition defies it's existence, assuming ordinary space metrics.

Now the universe is just that sort of concept. Although plausible at first (just a constructing of a whole from parts, but then taking that to the maxim) and using the inference that if we construct in mind a whole out of parts that are known to exist, we normaly arive at something that can exist.
Yet in the maxim case (building a concept for all of reality) is misses some important aspect for it to be something real: objective reality!

See my posts on how I arrive at that conclusion.

Secondly, you say that due to the deceivingly objective definition of the universe that you propose, the universe is 'outside of our minds' too.

No. Objective reality is. That is: there are objective relations that exist and that we can test for. And although there exists no limit on how far (in space, time, diversity, relations, etc) this objective reality can go, we can never arrive at a concept of reality as a whole (all of objective reality) which also exists in objective reality. This is only so as far as this whole has a reality outside itself, but which it can not have, for then it would not be the maxim of objective reality.

In other words, this means: Whatever we try we can not arrive at a concept of all of objective reality (as objective reality) without contradiction.

Well I just got to ask, how can you argue that something is 'outside of our minds' when you know what that something is.

I know what (the concept of) raining is. It is now raining outside.

I see no problems with this.

It is meant to say that some concept or idea or image I have in mind (in thought) is a reflection of something that exists outside of the mind, in objective reality.

It's like saying that we can't know what a triangle is. When you state what it is in your refutation of our knowledge of it, you nullify your argument. Similarly, how is a triangle non-objective knowledge? Because it is 'an abstract concept of thought'?

A triangle in thought is an ideal form, but it does reflect the reality of objects outside of our mind. We merely have to look at three distinct points and see a triangle. You can find triangular shaped forms almost everywhere.

Which looks to me that you're now arguing something else that is similar, but not the same as what you were arguing above. On the one hand, I agree with this quote (although it is a different argument as before), and on the other I disagree. Certainly, we can all know what a triangle is objectively as easily as we can know what a pencil is. Neither the pencil or the tiangle have to exist in front of our eyes (physically) in order for us to know what they are. Likewise we know what grass is, and we don't have to be in its physical presence to know what we're talking about. These are just the words that we english speaking humans (you and I) connotate with these "things" wether they are 'abstract concepts of thought' or not. Surely, words work because we can communicate thoughts by their use because we have agreed on a common ground on which to relate concepts. Surely you know what I'm talking about when I say the word grass, although you may have a different image in your mind as to what it "looks" like, but you know what I'm referring to. Likewise, you know what I'm talking about when I say the word God, although you may have a different "image", or "understanding" or "definition" in your mind than what I have. Do you see what I'm saying here? There is a level upon which we both have complete knowledge, and it allows us to communicate thoughts, although we both may interpret those arrangements of words in our own ways as we relate them with our own experiences. So, surely you know what I'm referring to when I say the word universe, even though you may go by a different--more in depth--definition. So there is a level on which we know objectively, and there is a level on which we can only know subjectively. Our repretoire of 'abstract concepts of thought' aren't mutually exclusive, but there is some overlaping. Speaking in the language of sets, our sets have an intersection where we both share objective relations. Bringing this back to the ideas of subjective, objective, and absolute truth, we might look at those 'concepts' or 'relations' or 'ideas' or 'definitions' which are common to all sets as objective truths. It goes without saying that the amount of subjective truths are much larger for each set. The absolute truth is still an undefined set in this exploration as far as I understand, and perhaps we could say that objective truth is a subset of it, but I'm not sure about that.

I wasn't talking about absolute truth, I think that absolute truth are only relative, or can only be known in a relative way. But that is a whole different topic on it's own.

By the way have you read anything of Hegel?

Now that I've thought about this a little more, I don't fully agree with you as I did above, and maybe I understand what you did too, if it was anything like what I just did.

ok.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Thats not a whole different topic. That is what we're talking about here. I agree that absolute truths can only be knowable subjetively. The only problem is that the subjetive perspective of absolute truth can't be fully conveyed to other people, and can't be experimentally verified, so we have no way to find out who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

What do you mean with "more real"?

The world can be known with the mind only, yet on the other hand this does not infer that the mind itself is primary.

So, basically the world in primary sense is just material, and consciousness is secondary. The phenomena of consciousness can be satisfactory explained in terms of matter (it is just a different perspective on the same phenomena) and the material world existed long before there were living organisisms and consciouss living beings.

I don't see any problem with this worldview.

But if a tree falls in the woods... What I mean is that if there were a universe around, and nobody was there to consciously perceive it, then would it still exist? Would it still be real? What you explained is that it would am I right? Since it doesn't matter if we're conscious of it or not, it is still real, even if we're in this universe and not in that one. Do you define things to be real if they are made of matter and take up space and time?

 

[heusdens]

But if a tree falls in the woods... What I mean is that if there were a universe around, and nobody was there to consciously perceive it, then would it still exist? Would it still be real? What you explained is that it would am I right? Since it doesn't matter if we're conscious of it or not, it is still real, even if we're in this universe and not in that one. Do you define things to be real if they are made of matter and take up space and time?

Your question is if there is a sound of a falling tree when nobody is around (no consciouss observer) to hear it?

Yes, because the sound waves themselves are as real as the tree that fell.

All of reality is composed of matter in motion in space and time, and we have in principle no other means to state anything about reality.

[ the only addition to that is the abstract reality of mathematical truths, and so forth which strictly speaking are not physical themselves ]