What exists? (No seriously.)

A few questions to ponder and discuss:

1.  Does the past exist?
   
2. Does the future exist?
   
3. Do abstractions exist?
   
4. Do thoughts exist?
   
5. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
   
6. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
   

Do you believe that from a subjective or objective viewpoint, or do you believe that as a universal truth?

My more elaborate comments are 23 and 28.

Subjective and objective perspectives can both be logically derived.

I believe you're thinking about the word pragmatic.

When choosing what material, I need to boil water I must check its objective properties so that it will not melt at the boiling temperature of water.

When choosing a present for my friend I will not check the objective truth for the most beautiful color but instead their subjective favorite.

I hope these clearly demonstrate that both objectivity and subjectivity are logical but must be chosen practically given the circumstances.

What do you mean by quanta equals objectivity?

Quanta =/= Objective.

What do you believe constitutes an objective property?

I misunderstood your syntax, my apologies. What do you mean by quanta does not equal objective?

I believe I understand now. You believe what exists is only what is conceived by the mind and nothing outside of it?

Would you agree that the objective realm is theoretical but also pragmatic?

In what way do you view the objective realm causes logical inconsistencies?

The nature of objective is it is meant to be universal or independent of perspective.

Do you think that a theory with no proof is illogical, or the certainty of its truth?

What im trying to say is. 

  ☆☆☆ 《Athias 》 ☆☆☆ 

Sorry pal , butttt.

( i believe  )  You'd suck big time as a jury member. 

So how does that which exists (i.e. the "physical") depend on that which allegedly doesn't exist (i.e. the abstract or the immaterial)?

. . . provide sufficient controls for their alleged observations of that which is "independent of their minds" and that which isn't.

Do you think that a theory with no proof is illogical, or the certainty of its truth?

It isn't that objectivity is a theory with no proof; objectivity extends an absurd premise--i.e. reality can be observed and rationalized independent of the mind.

The mind is dependent on the brain; there is no evidence for a disembodied mind. I think that mind is merely a name for a collection of brain functions, in the same way that digestive system describes the activities of a collection of bodily organs.

The events that happen in the mind are a form of experience like pain or sound. They are real, ephemeral, and private for each subject. Thoughts, recollections, imaginings and such, are a species of feelings. Those things are dependent on brain activity and have no independent existence.

1) neither past nor future exists. The past is dependent on recollection; the future on imagination. They are useful fictions, like the mind.

2) Mathematics are symbols invented by humans, like language.

They are real in the same sense as thoughts and other feelings.

Because mathematics can be learned by humans to communicate no matter which language they speak, they are thought (not proven) to be universal.

There is no such dependency

the reverse is true.

Both exist but the mental depends on the physical. What depends on mathematics is humanity’s conception of the universe, not the universe itself.

Observations are independent of one mind, not of all minds.

When many minds agree about an observation it is presumed to be real.

This is not infallible, but it has worked well as a practical matter.

This is why I view objectivity as a theoretical concept that has pragmatic purposes, while acknowledging it cannot be proven.

I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone viewing an object must be subjectively experiencing the object.

In this way no one can ever experience the reality objectively, but subjectively.

Regardless, we can theorize what the world is like separated from our perception by using consensus and non-subjective tools such as thermometers.

In essence, every person is a subject within the universe and experiences it subjectively, while the objective realm is a theory of what the world is like independent of perception and is calculated based on empirical evidence.

I believe it rational that a quantity is a non-subjective aspect of reality such as the number of marbles in a bag which could be considered an objective aspect of reality.

This is why I view objectivity as a theoretical concept that has pragmatic purposes, while acknowledging it cannot be proven.

What use is the "theory" if independence can never be established?

I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone viewing an object must be subjectively experiencing the object.

Why is that reasonable when objectivity cannot be reasoned outside of absurdity?

In this way no one can ever experience the reality objectively, but subjectively.

What is an "objective reality" if not an absurdity? You just argued--and quite well I might add--that it's impossible to know that which lies independent of the mind, so what reason can objectivity inform? What use is the "theory" of objectivity in epistemology? Does existence have any significance outside of epistemology?

Regardless, we can theorize what the world is like separated from our perception by using consensus and non-subjective tools such as thermometers.

But that is not scientific. That's just an assumption.

In essence, every person is a subject within the universe and experiences it subjectively, while the objective realm is a theory of what the world is like independent of perception and is calculated based on empirical evidence.

Noumena are a Kantian assumption that bears no application in epistemology.

I believe it rational that a quantity is a non-subjective aspect of reality such as the number of marbles in a bag which could be considered an objective aspect of reality.

How are quantities not subjective?

Being the objective view is the theoretical concept underlying our subjective experiences, by understanding the objective view we can make predictions and better understand our subjective views along with others rather than being completely blindsided to an underlying commonality and being ignorant towards the ability to predict others subjective lens which we obviously can do to a certain extent by using knowledge about the objective world and by viewing other's personalities.

I believe I understand that your stance is if we can never truly experience the objective reality then what is its intended purpose. The purpose would be to understand the bias in our own emotions and subjective lens and by understanding the underlying theoretical truth we can better interpret and understand the subjective lens of others.

As I said, I am remarkably familiar with the topic, and I have argued for Solipsism in the past and still do. Nonetheless, I see utility in understanding the underlying theoretical concept behind our subjective views of the world and see we can use this to make predictions and better understand our world. A primary example of this would be the theory of atoms. No one has directly experienced or been able to see an atom since they are far too small.

Nonetheless, the theory of atoms has allowed us to invent electromagnetic generators along with new materials and chemical compounds. It is in this way that theories and concepts are crucial to understanding and navigating one's life.

That is an assumption, but it is also an educated assumption which makes it a theory, and as I explained above, I believe that theories and concepts are a crucial aspect of understanding the world.

This statement refers to the philosophical concept of "noumena" as introduced by Immanuel Kant, a prominent German philosopher. In Kant's philosophy, he distinguishes between two realms of reality: the noumenal and the phenomenal.

1. Noumena: This refers to the things-in-themselves, the ultimate reality that exists independently of human perception and cognition. Noumena are things as they are in their true nature, beyond our ability to perceive or fully understand.
   
2. Phenomena: This refers to the world as we perceive it through our senses and interpret it through our understanding. Phenomena are the appearances or representations of the noumena that we can access and comprehend through our senses and mental faculties.
   

The statement suggests that "noumena" is an assumption made by Kant that has limited or no practical application in the field of epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, sources, and limitations of human knowledge and understanding. It seeks to understand how we come to know things and the conditions under which knowledge is possible.

The criticism here is that Kant's idea of noumena, being things that exist beyond our perceptual and cognitive capacities, cannot be known or accessed by humans. Since epistemology deals with knowledge and understanding, concepts that are beyond the reach of human knowledge would have no application in this context. In other words, if noumena cannot be known or understood by humans, then they are not relevant to the study of epistemology, which focuses on the limits and possibilities of human knowledge.

My perspective is that if there exists an underlying structure that permeates all of our subjective views, then by formulating theories about the objective realm, we can gain insight into our subjective perspectives and biases. While I acknowledge that the world cannot be directly experienced in an objective manner, I believe we can theorize about it, and the theory itself can be known and help us understand our subjectivity. Therefore, I see the objective realm as unknowable, but the theory of the objective lens is knowable, as evident in my current conception of it. Ultimately, what we can grasp is not the world in isolation from perception, as it remains unknowable, but rather the shared essence among our subjective experiences—a collective subjective theory (theory of objectivity, not objectivity) that can be known.

Many people agree that quantities are independent of perception because it is consistent among all individuals that the number remains the same.

This would make it an attribute of the object and not of the perceiver, which makes it an objective and not a subjective attribute.

Being that it is self-evident to most people and myself that numerical quantities are objective and independent of perception, could you explain why you believe otherwise?

Objective:

1. Objective refers to something that exists independently of individual opinions, beliefs, or perspectives.
   
2. It is based on measurable and verifiable information that is consistent and replicable across different observers or measurements.
   
3. Objective information is not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or interpretations.
   

Examples of Objective:

• Empirical Data: Scientific measurements, experiments, and observations that can be objectively verified.
  
• Numerical Quantities: Mathematical values such as length, weight, time, etc., that can be precisely measured and expressed.
  

Subjective:

1. Subjective relates to individual perspectives, opinions, feelings, and experiences.
   
2. It is influenced by personal beliefs, emotions, cultural background, and individual context.
   
3. Subjective information can vary from person to person and may not be verifiable in an objective, standardized manner.
   

Examples of Subjective:

• Beauty: The perception of beauty varies from person to person and is influenced by cultural norms, personal preferences, and experiences.
  
• Value: The value of an object, experience, or idea is subjective and depends on how individuals perceive its worth or importance.
  

For example, while scientific data and measurements are objective,

their interpretation and implications can involve subjective judgments.

On the other hand, objectivity is crucial for empirical research, making decisions based on evidence, and providing a common ground for shared understanding.

We can think of the theory of objectivity as a refrigerator. We do not need to understand the inner workings of its entirety to make good use of it. I refrigerate my groceries everyday and I don't have a complete understanding of how it works, yet its helpful to me everyday in my subjective world. Similarly, it may be impossible to comprehend the objective world, as previously stated it is unperceivable, yet this does not render it unless or absurd, but unknown and available for use.

Being the objective view is the theoretical concept underlying our subjective experiences, by understanding the objective view we can make predictions and better understand our subjective views along with others rather than being completely blindsided to an underlying commonality and being ignorant towards the ability to predict others subjective lens which we obviously can do to a certain extent by using knowledge about the objective world and by viewing other's personalities.

But why would a logical necessity, i.e. subjective experience, have a logical absurdity, i.e. objective experience, underlie it? Why is "commonality" expressed through the proposition of "objectivity" and not the proposition of "logical consistency"?

I believe I understand that your stance is if we can never truly experience the objective reality then what is its intended purpose. The purpose would be to understand the bias in our own emotions and subjective lens and by understanding the underlying theoretical truth we can better interpret and understand the subjective lens of others.

But that in and of itself is a bias. And it's a bit of circular reasoning given that premise and its extension are the same.

As I said, I am remarkably familiar with the topic, and I have argued for Solipsism in the past and still do. Nonetheless, I see utility in understanding the underlying theoretical concept behind our subjective views of the world and see we can use this to make predictions and better understand our world. A primary example of this would be the theory of atoms. No one has directly experienced or been able to see an atom since they are far too small.

The assumption itself is the only "substance" provided for the assumption. And we have seen atoms using electron ptychography if I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nonetheless, the theory of atoms has allowed us to invent electromagnetic generators along with new materials and chemical compounds. It is in this way that theories and concepts are crucial to understanding and navigating one's life.

But what relevance does that bear to the claim of objectivity? How does the invention of electromagnetic generators as well as new materials and chemical compounds establish independence from the mind?

That is an assumption, but it is also an educated assumption which makes it a theory, and as I explained above, I believe that theories and concepts are a crucial aspect of understanding the world.

An educated assumption would imply knowledge or prediction using experience. What knowledge or experience does anyone have of "objective reality"? The point of objectivity is that it negates knowledge or experience.

My perspective is that if there exists an underlying structure that permeates all of our subjective views, then by formulating theories about the objective realm, we can gain insight into our subjective perspectives and biases. While I acknowledge that the world cannot be directly experienced in an objective manner, I believe we can theorize about it, and the theory itself can be known and help us understand our subjectivity. Therefore, I see the objective realm as unknowable, but the theory of the objective lens is knowable, as evident in my current conception of it. Ultimately, what we can grasp is not the world in isolation from perception, as it remains unknowable, but rather the shared essence among our subjective experiences—a collective subjective theory (theory of objectivity, not objectivity) that can be known.

But what is the basis for even proposing a theory of objectivity in the first place? Or that the world lies beyond that which we directly experience? The assumption itself. How can that be a theory, or even an educated guess, if that assumption isn't based on any knowledge or experience?

Many people agree that quantities are independent of perception because it is consistent among all individuals that the number remains the same.

Isn't that a perception, especially considering that they all "agreed" to it?

Being that it is self-evident to most people and myself that numerical quantities are objective and independent of perception, could you explain why you believe otherwise?

Because numbers are but mere abstractions we use to give a form to our experiences. When I've asked for proof of the number, "2," for example, that is, proof of its mass, volume, weight, chemical composition, etc. no one has been able to do so. (Not that I would expect them to provide proof.) When I see two apples on my table, is their existing as two apples independent of my or any observation or merely an expression of a standard of description to which I and others subscribe? Standardization =/= Objectivity; Consistency =/= Objectivity. Logical consistency can be found within subjectivity. In fact, logical consistency can be found ONLY in subjectivity.

When I apply the terms objective and subjective, my application is in concordance with their philosophical descriptions, which avoids materialist misconception.

For example, while scientific data and measurements are objective,

They're not.

their interpretation and implications can involve subjective judgments.

Their interpretations and implications ONLY involve subjective judgements.

On the other hand, objectivity is crucial for empirical research, making decisions based on evidence, and providing a common ground for shared understanding.

Your conclusion has operated on a description of objectivity inconsistent with that which was applied before.

We can think of the theory of objectivity as a refrigerator. We do not need to understand the inner workings of its entirety to make good use of it. I refrigerate my groceries everyday and I don't have a complete understanding of how it works, yet its helpful to me everyday in my subjective world. Similarly, it may be impossible to comprehend the objective world, as previously stated it is unperceivable, yet this does not render it unless or absurd, but unknown and available for use.

How can it be put to use if it's "unknowable"?