Is there truth to Nihilism and if so, which version is the most accurate?

when you say objective meaning do you mean that nothing has value apart from the opinion of humans? 

Nothing has value apart from what we attribute as value. This can be opinions of humans or not opinions of humans. 

Right so you think that all value is endowed by humans.

 Would you say that motion has a value?  or weight? I realize the numbers themselves are chosen subjectively, but is there no value in motion? 

Would you say that physical world has a physical value and that this is not the same thing as the subjective value that is place on thoughts and feelings? 

Well since all we perceive goes through our brain it does become subjective value. If there was physical value then we would never know it but we can using what we can know and in what we interpret that into an idea of physics.

While you have your subjective value of needing to walk somewhere.  You have to impose your body onto the objective values of physics to meet your subjective goal.  

Well since all we perceive goes through our brain it does become subjective value. If there was physical value then we would never know it but we can using what we can know and in what we interpret that into an idea of physics.

Yes we require to have a grasp of physics to understand how bad a walk can be. That is elevated to being objective because it has shown to be consistent. Objective should mean consistent I don't like the current definition of the word.

I think if we seen reality how it actually was it would be impossible to navigate. 

You're basically saying that you prefer induction because it keeps your reality updated, so to speak, without you having to make too many assumption, whereas deduction you have to have sound premises that lead to a sound conclusion and you don't like taking that step because you feel like you're professing knowledge out of your view.

I am sure to be consistent would require sound premises but it would also require consistent results in order to get a good conclusion. 

Sound premises ---> Consistent results ---> Conclusion

Well this is where people tend to disagree on what is sound.  This comes down to the Black Swan argument. 

I'll use gravity as an example.  Gravity has a 100% induction rate.  That is to say that every time we've expected gravity to act like gravity it does so.  Some people see this as sound and others take it as a presupposition but say it's not justifiable.  If you're in the first camp, then deduction is easy and one should do it.  if you're in the second camp.  Then you don't get "sound" premises but rather you have "weak" and "strong" inductions.   I feel like you fall toward the second camp but you go the extra step and say the "strong" induction is sound which I'm okay with. 

I think it would be im-probable but eventually humans might get their bearings. It will still be going through our brain like the current world we live in but if have improved senses then it would open more doors in science but would still be hitting the same roadblocks.

One way to do this is to presuppose that X = meaning and then take it for a test drive to see what happens. 

If X did equal meaning then nihilism wouldn't even be relevant at all.

So don't think of this as you conceding nihilism, think of it as proving your nihilism by contradiction.  If you can assume nihilism is false and still get nihilism or a logical contradiction, then it proves nihilism and it's a good thought experiment 

Don't understand this. 

Essentially "meaning" is just a word and we can try and figure out what people are really saying when they say meaning.

This is partly why dictionaries came into existence.  To show a common agreement of definition

It has been shown that as long as the first and last letter are correct, then when context is also known, then that more often than not, the word can be figured out ergo it has meaning to the human.

Ex the word "meaning" has a definition{s} ergo a meaning to the human. However, if take the same number information bits/pixels and rearange the patterned sequence ...agminen... of their occurrence then the meaning may be lost

You're talking about a mechanism in human biology that some people don't have.  I wouldn't call that an intrinsic rule.  

dictionaries don't give meanings but rather usages.

  They're basically word surveys.  That's why one word will have multiple usages.

So while a dictionary is a good starting point,....

I could look in a dictionary and see what you mean by it. 

 A word is merely a place holder for a logical set. ....This isn't really a critique of anything but rather my methodology. 

A word is merely a place holder for a logical set.

What a shame its not clear what 'place holder' or 'logical set' means.

'Logical set' is particularly interesting... are there illogical sets?


Also that might be true for nouns, but does it apply to, say, adverbs?

I've noticed people tend to say 'merely' (occasionally 'only' or 'just') when it's actually quite deep and complicated...and possily not even true!

The lab studies are indicative of what is common to most humans. Ex double blind lab studies show that a placebo effect occurs 10% of the time.

So you can argue with some lab studies,but eventually if we trust in their intentions, and they come to the same conclusion then go with their flow of common sense and common to all people.

Meainings are definitions and they give usage in a sentence. Context of sentence changes influences their meaning. 

Yeah and I have made this clear for  by stating for many years now that soul and spirit have perhaps more definitions than most other words

Here is my methodology, come to agreement on a definition first,and foremost  --- ex God is a big one---  irrespective of if its in a dictionary or how is defined in various dictionaries.