You must log in or register to comment.
I’m pretty sure this is a quote from a Steven Seagal movie. Can’t remember the name, but he’s a bad guy, maybe with a surprise twin brother at the end?
The fact check is probably about the fact that Marcus Aurelius didn’t say that.
Oh damn, actually fact checked, RIP
I mean, he’s objectively wrong. Objective facts exist objectively. Jupiter had rings and 95 moons long before anyone ever knew either fact. The moon had ice long before anyone ever knew that. Mt. Erebus was a volcano in the Antarctic long before anyone stepped foot in the Antarctic.
The external universe literally exists; and so do facts.
But that we don’t see the whole picture is also a truth. Figuratively as well as literally, since we only see a limited spectrum of light.
Except the number of Jupiter moons may not have always been the same so the current number is a point in time perspective.
Plus we may not have discovered them all yet. ;)
But those undiscovered moons exist nonetheless, if they do
Jupiter has a static number of moons in every time frame from every perspective.
How many depends when you ask, but the above statement is an objective truth.
Facts exist, but we can’t ever be certain of them. We do not experience reality. We experience what our fleshy input devices capture and transmit to our brains; our brains invent “experience” based on those inputs.
I am certain of the fact that Mt. St. Helens is a volcano that exists. I am certain of the fact that it erupted prior to my existence upon this planet, and while I have never laid my own eyes upon this volcano, though not for lack of experience I remain certain of its existence based on the shared experiences and existences of millions of others, and the data they have accrued.
I get what you’re saying with the whole “objective” part of objective reality; but it’s not like you’re going to mount a defense against the existence of Mt. St. Helens, right?
Someone else mentioned Descartes - “I think, therefore I am” - which is the only thing we can know with 100% certainty. There is “is-ness” and “I exist”.
That’s not exactly what I’m talking about here, but it applies.
In practical terms, we experience predictable outcomes based on accepting certain things as being true. That’s different from those things actually being true.
You’re thinking like an academic, which is often alien and “wrong” to the broader populace, just like a properly labelled graph (according to a previous discussion on Lemmy, lol).
But I agree. In engineering one quickly learns the difference between the “perfect” and “real” world. In the perfect world, you can assume that 1+1 always equals 2, gravity always goes down, wind resistance is 0, and our scientific model (of any given time and version, choice is yours) is always correct.
In the real world nothing makes sense, nothing fits, you’re lucky if 1+1=2 within a ±0.1 error, and did you just discover the topic for another weird research project? Shit.
And does @[email protected] 's Mt. St. Helens really exist? No clue, I’ll take anyone’s word for it. One could drag me up some random mountain and tell me that’s it, but, in the end, I’d just be spewing someone else’s opinion. (which is good, agreement must be had to do anything productive, but we’re currently talking objectivity, and not agreement.)
But I do have 100% certainty that Mt. St. Helens exists. It is a feature of the “is-ness”, with a specific location that can be shared; and you too can visit it, climb to its peak (not recommended) and validate for yourself that it is an existing feature of reality.
In practical terms, we experience predictable outcomes based on accepting certain things as being true.
But Mt. St. Helens literally exists, regardless of whether or not you accept it to be true. You can accept that its name isn’t “true” since that’s more of a shared label that we all agree upon and it hasn’t named itself; but to not accept the truth of its existence has no bearing on your predictable outcomes once you arrive there and start to climb it
In the “I do have 100% certainty”, the important part is not the 100% certainty, it is the I. It is a certainty you hold for objective, but since it can only be hold as such by subjective beings like you and me, this subjectivity is transmitted to the ‘fact’.
In everyday life it is far easier to consider those facts as absolute, but we have no absolute proof of that (even when you see it, when people tell you they see it, when you read records of the thing, the thing, the people, the records could be an illusion. Though very unlikely, we cannot prove its not without relying on other things that could be illusion)
All right, We’ll do it the other way.
MtStH exists? Prove it. Shared experiences with other people? Prove they exist. You’re climbing it right now? No, your experience is that you’re climbing it right now, and your experience is not reality. Your experience and reality may or may not correlate; you could be a “brain in a jar” receiving inputs from something else entirely which produce in your consciousness the experience of climbing a mountain. You could be innumerable layers deep in a simulation.
Experience and reality are separate things. For practical purposes, behaving as though they correlate works, but they are distinct from one another.
Shared experiences with other people? Prove they exist.
See, this is where you lose me. When you’re out and about in the world, interacting with people, interfacing with reality, it’s not up to those individuals to prove to you that they exist prior to, during, or after your interactions with them. You don’t doubt the existence of your lunch before you eat your lunch; it is an objective fact that your lunch exists, hopefully, and if not, you are objectively hungry. Your body will suffer measurable physiological effects from your hunger. If you starve and die, it’s a fact that you are now dead.
Do you have evidence to back up the “brain in a jar” theory? Cuz we can talk about “could be’s” all day long, but what is measurable, consistent, and verifiable externally by everyone is what matters far more
Some people hallucinate that others exist all the time. Hell, I’ve done it. How can I know with 100% certainty that the people I see exist, and aren’t hallucinations?
you’re going to mount a defense against the existence of Mt. St. Helens, right?
I will!!! Mostly to try and better illustrate what is being meant by “perspective is not reality”.
I am certain of the fact that Mt. St. Helens is a volcano that exists.
A mountain exists in that location that was formed via an underlying volcano, however the name for both is Lawetlat’la.
I am certain of the fact that it erupted prior to my existence upon this planet
Volcanoes themselves generally do not erupt, magma chambers erupt through (and via that process create) volcanoes.
I have never laid my own eyes upon this volcano
Nor have most. Outside of eruption events the volcano isn’t visible, only the mountain is.
The volcano Mt St Helens does not exist. Using the mountain of Lawetlat’la as evidence does not make the volcano Mt St Helens exist because while the mountain and volcano are distinct entities, standard naming convention is to call them both the same thing.
I appreciate the time and effort you spent on this, but it feels more like an argument against words than it does against concepts.
Colloquially, if I say “a volcano erupted” I’m not being inaccurate, even if it was the magma chamber that erupted; and if I say “Mt. St. Helens erupted”, everyone knows what I’m talking about even if the original name isn’t properly preserved or respected.
However, I find downvotes distressing so I’m abandoning this thread, and I shall not downvote you just because I disagree. I hope you have a lovely day. :)
argument against words than it does against concepts.
That’s good feedback, thank you. I did do both and I think it muddled the message a bit.
It was also not the best example, but I tried lol. Have a lovely day!
Nobody can be certain of anything ever and if they did they weren’t im so smart
Lets start here, and then loop back on your statement.
I disagree but also agree with you — I think you and the quote are talking about slightly different things.
Facts do exist, but what you hear from others is still an opinion. Those opinions may align with facts or not, be better evidenced or less, but it is overwhelming evidence that allows us to confidently state a fact (and potentially still be wrong). I think he is correct because objective reality, while real, is observed through our imperfect understanding, senses, language, etc.
We may be running into a limitation of language, because to state, “Mt. Erebus exists” is both fact AND opinion. But it’s also not an opinion, because it’s a fact.
That replies upon the definition of “mountain”, amongst other things, which has a consensus but isn’t something that is absolute. I agree that there is an objective nature to reality (though that can be argued too but I don’t see the value of doing so). I also agree with the opinion that Mt. Erebus exists because we are sharing an understanding of what is around us and agree on the evidence that comes from objective reality. However, you stating it makes it an opinion. It is an opinion based on evidence.
Personally, I think that there is an objective reality, but everything has to pass through our senses and understanding, so anything that filters out the other side is opinion. I don’t think facts are that absolute, but it’s a convenient way to say “this opinion has so much evidence to support it that I am confident it is true”, so calling things facts has value.
People (unfortunately) believe that things are facts without them being true, or due to them being a decent approximation, all the time. The thing that matters is the weight of evidence behind the opinion, as not all opinions are equal. I think that dismissing something as an opinion is silly, but dismissing one for lack of evidence or the fact it is subjective is valid.
Every breath you take, I’ll be watching you.
When you breathe, I’ll be the air for you.
Is this just a bad translation?
