Can objective truth be incomplete?

[BeHereNow]

Two assumptions, which may or may not be true:
1) Objective truth must contain only true understanding or knowledge.
2) If there is any falseness, objective truth has been lost.

Can objective truth be incomplete? That is, do I have objective truth if I understand and know only true things about an existing thing, or law of science, but there are other true things I am not aware of?

If, for example, I have true knowledge of a liquid, knowing and understanding many of its properties and characteristics, but I do not know the freezing point or boiling point, do I hold subjective or objective truth about the liquid?

Similarly, if a given law has three points of predictability, and I am only aware of two of them, is my knowledge subjective or objective?

It seems that if I do not know every single thing that is knowable about a particular thing, then my knowledge is incomplete and therefore not objective.
Surely this complete knowledge, which objective truth might require, is not possible (even by intuitiveness).

If we say 100% complete knowledge is not necessary for objective truth, do we only require that we have no false beliefs? Might we have objective truth if we are only aware of 1% of the total possible knowledge?

[hannahjoy]

I think you're going to have to define what you mean by "objective" and "subjective".

[BeHereNow]

Well, that is the point.
How do we (you) define them? Can we agree?

[BeHereNow]

Truth might be considered reality. For this discussion I see no distinguishable difference. But I have a preference for the latter term, so if I say subjective reality or objective reality, I mean the same as subjective truth or objective truth. If you think there is a distinction between the two (truth vs. reality) that it important, you will need to show what that distinction is. I may disagree.

Subjective reality is reality from a particular point of view, a particular perspective. We might call this the view or perspective of the observer. It is convenient to think of the observer as a particular person, but the observer might be an institution or other group of people separated by space and time.
Christianity offers a subjective reality of life after death.
Science offers a subjective reality of the origin of the universe.
Nations offer subjective realities of politics.

Since subjective reality views reality from a perspective, we know that we are only seeing part of reality. A slice of the pie. A limb of the tree. The beginning of the story. An Egg of the batter.
The perspective which allows us to see reality, limits our view in completeness.
*) Subject reality is incomplete in some sense. This business of incompleteness gets complicated if we add the variable of time.
I view reality in the NOW, separate from time.
Don’t tell me the apple I bought from the store yesterday is the same apple I have sitting on my table because I know that is not true. The apple has undergone many changes since then. It is indeed very similar to the apple I bought yesterday, but in the truest sense, it has changed. We will recognize it as coming from the same apple for many days or weeks. If the apple is left alone it will rot, and evaporate into the environment, devoured by critters. It will no longer be recognizable. We might say it disappeared. A time lapse pictorial of this would be interesting. If a camera recorded a visual image every 10 seconds we would see much detail of the disappearance. If every hour, less so. If 100 hour periods, less so. And if the camera recorded images at 5 year intervals, we would simply say it disappeared. The difference in the detail we see is simply a matter of time.
Buy a rock at the store and the scenario is the same. I admit the disappearing act will take considerably longer, but rocks do not have an infinite life. They too are transient.

We might expect to disagree about what incompleteness means. When I say subjective reality is incomplete, I do not mean simply because the observer does not know the history or future of the reality. It goes deeper than that.
Incomplete means the reality observed contains elements or characteristics the observer is not aware of. It may be that this shortcoming is of no consequence to the observer. The observer might not change any thought or action if they had this additional knowledge, even so, it is subjective because it is incomplete.

Because subjective reality is reality viewed from a particular perspective, there is, by definition, separation between subject and viewer. This separation allows for a veil of deception to come between reality and observer. This veil, will of course, alter the observation of reality. The veil of deception can be brushed aside, allowing the observer to see reality unaltered. First the veil must be recognized. This can be accomplished many ways and science has made its business discovering and using means to not only recognize the veil, but way to brush it aside as well. Shamans and holy men for many ages have also pursued this endeavor, from a different perspective.
*) Subjective reality is prone to false beliefs about reality. There are many way to overcome this falseness.
*) Subjective reality does not imply falseness. I can see how some would disgaree with me on this point.

Objective reality is reality as it exists separate from any observer.
Objective reality can be observed, but this does not make it subjective. Objective reality is independent and unaffected by observation. If observation changes it, then it was not objective reality, but subjective reality.
It might be said that there is no reality separate from observation, in which case (by definition), there is no objective reality. There is still a term “objective reality”, and this term has meaning, and the meaning does not change simply because it does not exist. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its forehead, whither it exists or not.

Can objective reality be known?
If we take objective reality to mean completeness and we take this completeness to the Nth degree, then it is unlikely. As Vladd44 said in a earlier thread, “no one is capable of existing in the plane of being required to know of objective truth. If they were, they would be a god.”. I believe I understands what he means by this, and I do agree. In order to understand objective reality, one would need the knowledge and/or understanding of god.

We might take objective reality to mean simply an unbiased point of view. Still limited in its perspective, but unveiled. A special kind of subjective reality.
Is it possible to recognize an unbiased point of view? If it is possible, I would say only philosophers, shamans and priests have that capability.

[mrmufin]

This is some pretty heady stuff you're delving into, BeHereNow... I hope I have ample time to follow along. Rather than jump right into this, I'll offer my two sense on matters of objectivity and subjectivity. (The time-lapse photography of the apple is an interesting angle on this topic, indeed.)

Truth might be considered reality. For this discussion I see no distinguishable difference.

Ah, but wouldn't this be dependent upon what constitutes reality? For example, mathematical truths are purely conceptual. Useful, yep. True, indeed. Consistent, you bet. But I have a tough time regarding mathematical truths as having any basis in reality (at least in physical reality), and I might shore up my position with your statement:

Objective reality is reality as it exists separate from any observer.
Objective reality can be observed, but this does not make it subjective. Objective reality is independent and unaffected by observation. If observation changes it, then it was not objective reality, but subjective reality.

But mathematical truths are, in fact, unobserveable (which may be one reason that so many students struggle with higher mathematics).

It might be said that there is no reality separate from observation, in which case (by definition), there is no objective reality. There is still a term “objective reality”, and this term has meaning, and the meaning does not change simply because it does not exist. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its forehead, whither it exists or not.

The unicorn exists in some conceptual form, as does the fundamental theorem of algebra, the rules of chess, the definition of a circle, etc.

We might take objective reality to mean simply an unbiased point of view. Still limited in its perspective, but unveiled. A special kind of subjective reality.
Is it possible to recognize an unbiased point of view? If it is possible, I would say only philosophers, shamans and priests have that capability.

Actually, I really like the simple definition of objective reality: an unbiased point of view. I don't think that an incomplete point of view is necessarily unobjective, just incomplete. The camera taking timely photographs of the apple rotting on the table would, in my opinion, constitute an objective observer. The camera has no bias in the matter.

Conversely, when I think of subjective, I think of matters which are driven--to some extent--by factors such as political alliance, religious affiliation, philosophical perspective, sexual orientation, personal preference, team spirit, nationality, etc. On the other hand, the fundamental theorem of algebra pretty much works the same for all of us, regardless of our preferences, political ties, and religious association, making it an objective truth. The fact that the theorem eludes empirical observation distinguishes it from physical reality and places it in the conceptual realm...

Regards,
mrmufin

[BeHereNow]

mrmufin: Ah, but wouldn't this be dependent upon what constitutes reality? For example, mathematical truths are purely conceptual. Useful, yep. True, indeed. Consistent, you bet. But I have a tough time regarding mathematical truths as having any basis in reality (at least in physical reality):

To me, mathematical truths are simply an expression of reality.
You say they are purely conceptual, but aren’t they a concept derived from reality?
You say they can’t be observed. . .you’ve lost me.
I need help with a real world example.

I take it you would say social constructs are not real.
Religion is not real.
Politics are not real.
Love is not real?
History is not real?

When you distinguish “physical reality”, are you telling us there might be a dualism of physical reality and something else?

[mrmufin]

mrmufin: Ah, but wouldn't this be dependent upon what constitutes reality? For example, mathematical truths are purely conceptual. Useful, yep. True, indeed. Consistent, you bet. But I have a tough time regarding mathematical truths as having any basis in reality (at least in physical reality):

To me, mathematical truths are simply an expression of reality.
You say they are purely conceptual, but aren’t they a concept derived from reality?

Not really; at least that's not how I think of mathematics. Consider the common logarithm, which can be defined simply as, "The power to which 10 must be raised to equal a number X." Wasn't that easy? Just define a concept into "existence." Hence the common log is 1 when X = 10, the common log is 2 when X = 100, the common log is (approximately) 3.1761 when X = 1500, etc. Common logs are not derived from empirical data; but instantiated by definition. This is not entirely uncommon in mathematics, and I don't regard the bulk of mathematics as something which can be corroborated with empirical data, but instead as a system of axioms, propositions, definitions, deductions, proofs, etc. In short, a consistent, conceptual toolkit.

You say they can’t be observed. . .you’ve lost me.
I need help with a real world example.

This may be a sorta skimpy, off-the-cuff example, but here goes. While I can calculate the thickness of a dollar bill folded in half fifty times, there is no way whatsoever to confirm my calculation with empirical data, as a dollar bill can not be folded in half fifty times, and that's that.

The numbers, axioms, definitions, propositions and rules which make up mathematics transcend the physical realm. They have no mass, charge, angular momentum, etc. They exist as concepts, but clear and consistent concepts, and it is the consistency of the concepts and well formed formulas of mathematics which assure that our solution sets to a problem are the same whether we're taught maths in the US, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, Laos, etc.

I take it you would say social constructs are not real.
Religion is not real.
Politics are not real.
Love is not real?
History is not real?

When you distinguish “physical reality”, are you telling us there might be a dualism of physical reality and something else?

Actually, my original statement questioned what would constitute reality for the purpose of this discussion, and whether the "reality" which you originally refered to included non-physical entities, such as concepts. My question is based on my belief that there are certain nonphysical constructs which are both objective and truthful, and I used mathematics as an example.

As for examples (religion, politics, love), I'd suggest that they are highly subjective constructs, and history... well, history is the most intriguing item on the list... And subjective, depending on the historical claim.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

Truth might be considered reality. For this discussion I see no distinguishable difference. But I have a preference for the latter term, so if I say subjective reality or objective reality, I mean the same as subjective truth or objective truth. If you think there is a distinction between the two (truth vs. reality) that it important, you will need to show what that distinction is. I may disagree.

If I may, my own understanding of truth vs. reality is that truth is a human concept based on a consensus of observations, whereas reality is that objectivity you speak of that exists whether it is perceived or not. The objectiveness of truth is only as strong as its perceivers -- witness the God/No God debate. But the reality is that there is an answer to this.

I don't mean to say that truth is exclusively subjective, however. The whole idea is caught up in how we view the world vs. how it is when no one's looking at it. Are these two different things? They don't have to be. See below.

Subjective reality is reality from a particular point of view, a particular perspective. We might call this the view or perspective of the observer. It is convenient to think of the observer as a particular person, but the observer might be an institution or other group of people separated by space and time.
Christianity offers a subjective reality of life after death.
Science offers a subjective reality of the origin of the universe.
Nations offer subjective realities of politics.

I would disagree that an observation that is incomplete is subjective. I don't think that does the concept of subjectivity justice. We shouldn't forget that, as observers, we have our own internal masks and overlays that cause us to interpret observations in particular ways. But if the incompleteness of observation occurs on the measurement end, it is still an objective measurement. The very fact of its incompleteness is subjective, because "completeness" is a concept we ascribe to the measurements, but objectivity is not affected.

I would amend your statements above as follows:
Christianity proposes a truth about life after death.
Science proposes objective realities about the origin of the universe.
Nations offer opinions of politics.

I say that "Science offers objective realities" because of my previous statement about subjectivity. Incompleteness and subjectivity are two different things. There is an objective reality about the origin of the universe. Science does not say, According to Science, here's how it might have happened. Instead it says, Here's how it might have happened. I realize this is a subtle distinction. But the former implies a subjectivity based on how Science operates. Well, Science operates on objectivity. Its subjectiveness is its pursuit of total objectivity.

Since subjective reality views reality from a perspective, we know that we are only seeing part of reality. A slice of the pie. A limb of the tree. The beginning of the story. An Egg of the batter.

I think you've got the relationships a bit wrong. Viewing reality from a particular perspective results in a subjective reality. This does not equate incomplete observation with subjectivity.

The perspective which allows us to see reality, limits our view in completeness.
*) Subject reality is incomplete in some sense. This business of incompleteness gets complicated if we add the variable of time.
I view reality in the NOW, separate from time.
Don’t tell me the apple I bought from the store yesterday is the same apple I have sitting on my table because I know that is not true. The apple has undergone many changes since then. It is indeed very similar to the apple I bought yesterday, but in the truest sense, it has changed. We will recognize it as coming from the same apple for many days or weeks. If the apple is left alone it will rot, and evaporate into the environment, devoured by critters. It will no longer be recognizable. We might say it disappeared. A time lapse pictorial of this would be interesting. If a camera recorded a visual image every 10 seconds we would see much detail of the disappearance. If every hour, less so. If 100 hour periods, less so. And if the camera recorded images at 5 year intervals, we would simply say it disappeared. The difference in the detail we see is simply a matter of time.
Buy a rock at the store and the scenario is the same. I admit the disappearing act will take considerably longer, but rocks do not have an infinite life. They too are transient.

I think you are falling victim to the very temporal nature of thought that you are arguing against. By saying that the apple on the table is not the same apple as you bought at the store, you are ascrbing to it an extra-temporal nature of appleness which it does not possess. By denying its identity as that same apple, you are also denying its very nature. Because all things are temporary, we must, by our own very definitions of them, include their temporariness. You say that eventually the apple will disappear, and so it will return to the earth from which it came. But it was still an apple by any objective measure of what an apple might be or be called. As locked into our temporal morass as we are, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that everything else is also. In other words, the truth of the apple includes its temporal nature because that is how the language is used to define it. It is even most definitely the same apple because the term same implies this temporal nature.

If you take two separate time-independent snapshots of the apple today and tomorrow, it wouldn't be necessary to use terms like same or even apple. This is because our understanding of what this particular apple is vs. what any apple is does not have a corresponding ideal state. I.e., Is there an ideal apple? I say no. It is also because there is no temporal connection between the two snapshots, rendering judgments about them meaningless. Because we are part of time, we make our judgments about everything else that is a part of time. It is therefore possible to be objective about our experience of this time, but not of situations or objects that exist outside of time. Such observations and conclusions will be incomplete by their very nature.

For example: The apple exists. I can make this assertion because the terms used to define and shape the sentence are objective. The linguistic universe that helps me to define and shape everything else in it is subjective, but only insofar as I can allow the words to shift meaning. The concept behind the sentence the apple exists is also an objective assertion, and does not require the muddiness of language. At any point along its timeline, I can make this assertion, and I can even define its starting point and ending point of apple-ness -- in a subjective manner, no less -- and use the assertion to refer to objective reality. This is because there is a thing, an object that has a cause and effect relationship with its previous states that exists independently of language and yet is continually defined by it. The word apple allows for the sliding scale of what an apple is from cradle to grave, as it were. From the green nub on a tree to the rotting core in a forest.

Consider the phrase: That used to be an apple. Look at the rotting core on the forest floor. It's apple-ness has a qualifier, now, but it is no less objective an assertion even alongside the counter-assertion it's still an apple. It is an object in the universe, objectively caught in the act of being. Our definitions of it are caught up in how we want to define the world, but language itself does not change the referent. Those two statements above both mean the same thing. The language used to describe the situation can help shape how we think about it, but the situation does not change.

Can objective reality be known?
If we take objective reality to mean completeness and we take this completeness to the Nth degree, then it is unlikely. As Vladd44 said in a earlier thread, “no one is capable of existing in the plane of being required to know of objective truth. If they were, they would be a god.”. I believe I understands what he means by this, and I do agree. In order to understand objective reality, one would need the knowledge and/or understanding of god.

I would say bollocks to this. But only because I disagree with your definition. Objectivity does not require completeness of measurement. Any given objective measurement is still objective regardless of whether or not ALL POSSIBLE measurements have been made, and any given explanation for that one measurement, though itself possibly subjective, still refers to a possible objective truth. Anyone can know objective reality, and everyone does. To assign god-like knowledge to objective truth gives it an unnecessary sense of unattainability. Naturally, there are questions about objective truths that may never be known (Does God exist). But this does not imply the limitations of our conceptual framework to perceive absolute truth, only the limitations of the measurement paradigms. Is it necessary to know the quantum states that exist inside an apple seed in order to assert objective truth about the apple? There are millions of unanswerable questions about objective objects for which no answer is required in order to achieve objective understanding.

[ST88]

Consider the common logarithm, which can be defined simply as, "The power to which 10 must be raised to equal a number X." Wasn't that easy? Just define a concept into "existence." Hence the common log is 1 when X = 10, the common log is 2 when X = 100, the common log is (approximately) 3.1761 when X = 1500, etc. Common logs are not derived from empirical data; but instantiated by definition. This is not entirely uncommon in mathematics, and I don't regard the bulk of mathematics as something which can be corroborated with empirical data, but instead as a system of axioms, propositions, definitions, deductions, proofs, etc. In short, a consistent, conceptual toolkit.

Well.... not exactly. When you get into the purposes behind some mathematical tools, you're really getting into areas that mathematicians may describe as purely conceptual, but are actually rooted in real-world problems. The logarithm was developed in the 17th century as a shortcut for calculating multiple exponents and reconciling arithmatic and geometric series. Even the number e has a real world purpose -- it wasn't just made up out of the ether (like Planck's constant), it has to do with permutations and probabilities. I don't know if I can explain it very well... This quote does it better than me:

Imagine, for example, a party with ten guests. How many different ways can the ten coats be put on at random, or How many permutations of the ten coats are there?

The coats at these parties are always piled in a great heap somewhere. The first guest to leave pulls a coat at random from the ten coats in the pile. The next guest to leave will then have nine possible ways to make a random choice. And so on. The last guest, presumably the host, must curl up in whatever coat remains. So, apparently, there are (10)(9)(8)(7)... (3)(2)(1) ways for all of the coats to be chosen. This is expressed as 10! and adds up to: 3,628,800 different permutations.

How many of these possibilities are all wrong? A computer will quickly tell us that 1,334,961 of the possibilities result in absolutely no one going home in the correct coat.

Now notice: If we divide the total number of possibilities by the number of all-wrong possibilities we get: 2.71828, or e.
-- Derangements (edited to remove cuteness)

e is also useful for compounding interest. It also shows up in slope calculations. Common logs merely replace the base e with a base 10.

I say all this to help show that matematics, at however high a level it might work, is used to describe and measure the universe, and does not operate independently from it. Irrational, transcendental numbers appear in nature, more or less, and are part of our descriptions of how it all works. Mathematics is not a field where you get invention, it's a field where you get discovery.

[Vladd44]

Objectivity does not require completeness of measurement. Any given objective measurement is still objective regardless of whether or not ALL POSSIBLE measurements have been made, and any given explanation for that one measurement, though itself possibly subjective, still refers to a possible objective truth.

When I commented on objective truth as being an unrealistic goal, my primary focus was on truth. While I think objectivity is @ least theoretically possible, it is the idea of objective truth that i had issue with. I can believe in a willingness to be objective, and a desire for the truth. What I cannot accept is the capability of a person to attain "full truth"(whatever that is).

When we begin to label things as truth or untrue we define those terms by our personal understanding and awareness. You cannot judge an event from a perspective you simply have no frame of reference with. Until I have a frame of reference for infinity, all I can do is the best I can with the limited grasp on truth that I think I have.