The universe existed far before any human existed and will exist far after any human does not exist. It does not need any observer for it to exist.
Topics
About: truth
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: Objective Truths Don't Exist??
- 2: They Are Talking About the In-Observability of Objective Truths
- 3: What Objective Truths Are and Why They Are Guaranteed to Exist
- 4: The Distinction Matters
- 5: Any Science Is About Objective Truths
- 6: An Attitude That Is Pseudo-Scientific, in Fact, Anti-Scientific
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will understand that objective truths exist, a fact which has nothing to do with whether humans know (or can know) them, predict them, or can do whatever on them.
Orientation
There is an article on the reality, observations, and interpretations of them.
There are some articles on truthfulness (here and here).
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: Objective Truths Don't Exist??
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
One of the most appalling, disgusting, and stupid assertions seen among Biasians is "Objective truths don't exist.".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Are there really people who assert such a thing, even among Earthians?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I am guessing so.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
On what ground?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
In fact, such people do not usually explicitly express the assertion, because they do not care about truths, obviously, so, do not care about proving their correctness, because if there was no objective truth, there would be no correctness, because there would be nothing to which their assertion had to conform.
But at least, I frequently hear assertions like "No absolute truth exists." and "There are alternative truths.", which are equivalent to the denial of the existence of objective truths.
That is because any objective truth is an absolute truth, and there is no such thing as an "alternative truth" to any objective truth.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Is there not?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Certainly there is not. In fact, what does "alternative truth" mean? A dishonest wording. . . . When a specific number of people came to watch the inaugural address of a president, the exact specific number of people came; there is no "alternative truth" about that; what the president fantasized in his or her dysfunctional mind is about a totally different matter; it is about his or her mental health, not about the number of people who came.
2: They Are Talking About the In-Observability of Objective Truths
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
In fact, what they cite as support for their assertion of non-existence of objective truths are always about the in-observability of objective truths, as far as I know.
But the two are totally different things: they cannot sanely claim that objective truths do not exist just because they cannot observe objective truths, actually.
They are claiming that what they can observe determines what can exist, what an astoundingly selfish notion!
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
They will probably object that it is not just because they cannot, but because any being (most probably sentient) cannot, mechanism-wise.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
That does not matter at all: an electron inside a black hole cannot be observed by any being, but that fact does not make the electron vanish.
Or if there is a particle that does not interact with anything in any way, it cannot be observed by any being, but that fact does not make the particle vanish.
3: What Objective Truths Are and Why They Are Guaranteed to Exist
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Any objective truth is what is true regardless of any observer.
Mind you, "regardless of any observer" includes 'no observer at all'.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Some Earthians seem to be denying the existence of such a thing.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Foolish. . . . Remember that the universe existed far before any human (or any sentient being) existed and all the events there were not being observed by any human (or any sentient being). If an electron existed there, that fact is regardless of any observer, and that fact is an objective truth.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
On the other hand, is there really such thing as a subjective truth?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Not really.
When a disturbed president fantasized that more people came to his or her inaugural address than to his or her predecessor's, the fact that he or she fantasized so definitely exists, an objective truth.
Any "subjective truth" is not any truth by itself, but is a sloppy expression of a truth with some enclosing qualifications left out. When it should really be "I fantasized that more people came to my inaugural address than to my predecessor's.", more sloppily expressed "More people came to my inaugural address than to my predecessor's." is being pervasively called a "subjective truth".
When an objective truth is "I have measured the position of a particle to be (42, 78, 21) with respect to my coordinates system.", a subjective truth is "The position of a particle is (42, 78, 21).".
If a statement is a "subjective truth", that is because the statement was lazily expressed.
In other words, include the observer in the view, then it is an objective truth.
4: The Distinction Matters
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Probably, their claim is "Whether objective truths exist or not, it doesn't matter as far as we can't know them.".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I am really disgusted with that egregious disregard for truths: whether it does not matter or not, you must not declare what exist not to exist.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, probably, they are using the word 'truth' as meaning 'known truth'.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
That is why I say that Biasians must clean up their languages.
For one thing, if it is really "Known objective truths don't exist.", that fact should be a known objective truth.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That should be so.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Likewise, I can cite many known objective truths, because as I said, include the observer in the view, then it is an objective truth.
For another, such a wording is a manifestation of a critical indifference to the distinction: they can say so because they do not care about unknown objective truths: if just "truth" naturally sinks into them as 'known truth', it should be because "truth" is usually a known truth for them.
For us, truths are usually unknown, being needed to be found out, so, we do not imagine 'known truth' seeing just "truth".
Someone may say that it is just about the definition of the word, but it is really about the mentality that favors such a definition.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Why is the distinction important?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Because it is a truth and because even if objective truths cannot be exactly known, we can approach objective truths as near as possible, only if we admit the existence of objective truths.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Obviously, they do not want to approach objective truths.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I know. They want to say "As there are not objective truths, I can get away with whatever I say!", liars' paradise.
5: Any Science Is About Objective Truths
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Any science is about objective truths.
So, if there was no objective truth, there would be no room for any science.
In fact, if there was no objective truth, why would we not just fantasize as we wished?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Or we would have no option but to fantasize.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
In fact, why would we not have a measuring equipment that was designed to say '42' for any measurement? There should be no reason why not, because as there was no objective truth out there, there would be nothing for measurements to have to conform to?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I just wonder "why do we bother?".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
We measure things with it, and "Well, this is '42'.", "Oh, this is '42', again.", "What? This is '42', too!", "We have found an astounding, beautiful law! Everything is '42'!".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
An astounding foolishness.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
When we measure the location of a particle, its coordinates pop up into existence only at the measurement with the coordinates system chosen certainly, but if the location did not exist objectively, why would we bother to measure it in the first place? So, an argument like "The location pops up into existence only at the instant we measure it." is really nonsense.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
If the location did not exist objectively, the conclusion would be that it was not a proper material for science in the first place.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Of course, there will be some inaccuracies in measurements and having to introduce a unit to quantify anything is really cumbersome, but if we did not assume that things existed objectively out there, why would we bother to do science indeed?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
We can talk about inaccuracies because we assume objective truths, because otherwise, what are measurements inaccurate against? And humans (or any intellectual beings) need units to quantify things, but the universe does not need any unit, we have to remember.
6: An Attitude That Is Pseudo-Scientific, in Fact, Anti-Scientific
Hypothesizer 7
An attitude "I deny the existence of it because it is not 100% certain." is not scientific at all.
Usually an objective truth is not known 100% certainly, because certain objective truths are quite hard to know accurately. I mean, an objective truth like "I have measured the position of a particle to be (42, 78, 21) with respect to my coordinates system." can be known almost 100% certainly, but the objective position of the particle is probably impossible to know exactly.
So, there may appear some people who deem themselves very scientific because they deny the existence of the objective position of the particle, but they are really very unscientific, or I say anti-scientific.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Being not 100% certain is part of science, so it talks about measurement errors and does hypothesizing.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The hallmark of science is admitting the existence of errors and evaluating the errors and admitting that it is doing hypothesizing and being eager to mend hypotheses as counter evidences are found out, not denying what are not 100% certain.
That is the difference from religions, or at least most religions, which just keep insisting that some Bibles are 100% true, in spite of obvious counter evidences. . . . Was the universe created in 7 days? . . . You should know better than that.
I deny such Bibles, not because it is not 100% certain, but because it is preposterous.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Does Santa Clause exist?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
You see some Santas in some department stores, so they exist, but I do not assume they fly sleighs.
I do not assume so, not because it is not 100% sure, but because it is most unlikely.
