Yep.
I agree with the dictionary definition. But an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion does not describe material things or objective reality. It describes a subjective opinion about material things or objective reality.
I’m using the dictionary definition. See above. “The cheese tastes good” is an unprovable assertion about reality (material reality, depending on your stance on materialism and definition of “tastes”), the exact same way my example about the moon is.
What’s your game, Waldo? Are you punking me? Are you trying to waste my time? How on earth is this going clarify anything?
ETA: for others following, I already provided this.
I thought it was boolean. What makes something undecidable?
Link.
Probably the most famous undecidable statement in mathematics is the axiom of choice. Note it is called an axiom precisely because it is an undecidable theorem.
I just don’t see how being unprovable and unfalsifiable makes a claim about material things “subjective”. It doesn’t make them “true” or “false”, either.
How do you figure? In one, you’re making a claim about what goes on in your mind when you taste the cheese; call it your subjective opinion. In the other, you’re making a claim about what the moon is like when nobody – including you – is perceiving it; that’s, like, the ***opposite ***of subjective; what goes on in your mind, rather than in the external world, is excluded from it and thus doesn’t enter into it.
I believe that, if you phrase your example in words rather than symbols, I’ll have a decidedly easier time pinpointing the possible ambiguity that everything might be hinging on. Feel free to include scorn while figuring I’m the one misunderstanding you; I merely want to see if something becomes obvious upon becoming explicit.
Correct. Also your mind is a part of objective reality, so you are making a statement about objective reality. However, your statement cannot be proven or disproved. That is the key differentiation.
Given that the proposition has no empirical support (even in theory, because it cannot be proven) it must be a subjective proposition – one coming from the mind. It has no basis whatsoever in the outside world.
Do you genuinely not understand the example of symbolic logic I gave? It was quite explicit! Do you not understand the connection to our discussion? I would think you were putting me on (hence the scorn), but if you genuinely don’t understand, despite how obvious it seems to me, I will give one more try…
Well, yes, if you for some reason want to take it down that far, then we could effectively define everything as objective rather than subjective – which, actually, would still include your statement about the moon, so I’m not sure why you’d want to swap in such an odd definition.
How is it key? It appears in none of the definitions I’m aware of.
That’s not how it works. A proposition doesn’t become subjective simply by dint of lacking empirical support, as sure as it doesn’t become false by dint of lacking empirical support – unless you can supply a definition of “subjective” which pegs it to, y’know, lacking empirical support. There are plenty of interesting things you can say about a statement that lacks empirical support, but I don’t see that “subjective” automatically leaps into that gap.
We’ve gone over this. I’m using the dictionary definition. Your own provided definition.
You are also blatantly distorting my statements. I did not say or imply that “a proposition becomes subjective simply by dint of lacking empirical support”. Here I will quote myself:
If a proposition is undecidable and cannot even in theory have empirical support, I am saying it is subjective. It has no basis in material reality. It is entirely invented and supported subjectively within one’s mind.
The definition of “objective” includes neither a requirement of empirical support nor the possibility of even-in-theory empirical support; you can of course brand such a claim as “unverifiable” or “unfalsifiable”, but I don’t see how “subjective” enters into it regardless of whether it has empirical support, or lacks empirical support, or can’t even theoretically have empirical support – because the entire question of empirical support is absent from the definition.
Apparently the one with whom I am debating does not speak the above language. Here is an example of the above translated into plain English:
Now someone comes along and proffers:
This is a clear illustration of why the following statement of yours is false:
Your own definition of “objective”:
describes material things in objective reality
What is a material thing in objective reality? It is something material which can be measured to exist. For example, a faerie is not a material thing in objective reality, because it has not been measured to exist. Similarly, a moon “made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties” has not been measured to exist. In fact, it cannot be measured to exist even in principle. Therefore neither faeries nor said moon are material things in objective reality. Therefore they are not “objective.”
No, that’s a clear illustration that the chain of reasoning did not have the requisite bearing on the conclusion.
Cite?
I don’t see “measurability” mentioned in that definition; where are you importing it from?
You do realize that definitions use words which themselves carry meaning, right?
Material: anything made of matter
Matter: as a physicist I can weigh in here with some authority: matter is that which can be measured to have properties called mass and volume
How do you define “requisite bearing”? I’m guessing you are defining it tautologically.
I don’t see any reference to “measured” in the dictionary definitions:
But, hey, you’re a physicist, so maybe there’s some other definition that does require measurability. (“Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.” Huh. Not that one, anyway. Well, maybe you’ll provide a cite beyond My Post Is My Cite.)
It’s interesting; I used that phrase way back in post #48, and in post #70 you even copy-and-pasted my use of it in post #52 – and you’re only now zeroing in on the question of what it means. How odd.
Be that as it may, I’m using “requisite bearing” to mean that the conclusion does require the chain of reasoning in question. If a chain of reasoning lacks that requisite bearing, then disproving it doesn’t disprove the conclusion; if it has the requisite bearing, then disproving it disproves the conclusion.
As for that being tautological – well, again, consider post #48:
I don’t see how I could’ve made it more obvious – I mean, there’s even bolded italicizing to emphasize the sheer in-terms-of-itself-ed-ness – but, hey, if that helps you, then, by all means, run with it.
That is because it is so obvious as to be implicit and inherent in any description of a physical aspect of the universe. In order for any material in nature to be said to exist, it must be observed. In order for something to be observed, it must be measured. In fact, the two words “observe” and “measure” are synonymous.
Another common definition of something “objective”, is: something that which exists independently of the mind. The only way of determining whether something exists independently of the mind is to measure it. This is so basic and fundamental I’m still worried you might be putting me on.
Which explains why I don’t see either “observe” or “measure” in the definition.
It exists independently of the mind whether you measure it or not.
Are you suggesting that nothing existed until someone came along to measure it?
I’m asking you to be more precise. Oh, you know, kinda like you did here, and here. Remember that? Huh? Do ya?
How do you know? Have you measured it while you weren’t measuring it? Sounds like a subjective opinion to me. (in fact this is discussed in physics and is considered subjective, as an opinion on the matter is not falsifiable)
This is a not uncommon viewpoint in physics. But no, I’m not going there.
I’m suggesting that the pink elephant sitting beside me is subjective. <checks beside me> Yep, it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind.
Just because you make some assertion about physical reality does not make it automatically objective. It is subjective until observed to exist as a “material thing in objective reality”.