~~this is a CHRISTIAN SERVER take your SIN and leave~~

# This thread's title has finally been decided on

**yerboijosh**#8795

idk where to post this but

gauntlet interactions are probably making this venom toth worse for him than it is for me

edit: yes i know i played into claim and immo really hard

**ryousen**#8797

I just played the funkiest game against Ryvirath lol

At first I thought it was a pity I wasnt running my trademark Spellmar but this turned out to be memeful enough

https://play.duelyst.com/replay?replayId=-L7XbghGoBBcjtUOhdqM

**ryousen**#8798

Two quick thoughts:

- Depends on if we can trust our senses or not; if you say we can, closest to real is science, if you say we cant, go full Descartes solipsism- âI think therefore I am (and I cant be sure of anything else)â

2, 3, 4. Truth is not created, it is found; We didnt create the triangle, pithagoras didnt create a rule on its lengths, all mathematical knowlege for example is discovered through logic

In this sense there is objectivity, but it is again dependent on how much you trust your senses

Theres some linguistic shenanigans in some of these questions that I would like to call attention to but I dont know enough of the subject to rightfully discuss

Im actually going through classes about that; Frege, Russeau, Kripke and whatnot

Also, if youâre into âfringeâ stuff, check out Discordianism/Malaclypse The Younger on reality tunnels

**oranos**#8800

Psych 101 all over again. You know kant actually tried to make his work as opaque and confusing as possible?

**ryousen**#8801

That sounds fake af, philosophy is based around refutations and competition for the truth, if some dude were incoherently obscure they would be called out on it and be pushed away from academic circles- rather, never enter it in the first place

Whereas Kant has a bunch of books which are respected even today

I mean, thats what is expected

But weird things happen sometimes, dont they

**oranos**#8802

Eh, it was probably a joke i didnt realize was a joke.

But the psych proffessor said something like that. 80% sure it was kant he was talking about. something along the lines of âif you can understand it, i didnt say it rightâ

Which now that i really think about it seems more like a sick burn than something philosophical

**alplod**#8804

As a professional mathematician, I can say that mathematics is a bad example of objective knowledge about the world. Irl there are no straight lines, points, circles, triangles, no continuity, no numbers even. Can you show me 2? Not 2 fingers, not 2 apples, not a digit 2, but 2 in its abstract objective sense?

Everything in mathematics is a game of mathematicianâs mind, nothing is real. Mathematics doesnât study real world, mathematicians do not study real world, they study mathematics itself - a beautiful collection of abstract facts with no connection to real world.

Somehow it approximately describes some real objects and processes, but this is the work of a person doing research in e.g. Physics. And even then itâs an approximation, not objective knowledge. Thatâs why we had different models for the same processes during the development of science.

**phoenixtoasches**#8805

Yep, this is pretty accurate and applicable to basically all scientific fields as well. Take for example the values of entropy that we have: water (l) is about 70, hydrogen gas is around a 100 and C(graphite) is about 6. Where do we get those values from, how do we know?

We figure the values out through relativity, basically by how much it differs from another value which means there needs to be one baseline value that we know is true, but we can never know so we assign the value of 0 to a material, in this case, based on the third law of thermodynamics, the entropy of a perfect crystal at 0 K is 0. From there we assign values to everything else based on its relatedness to the baseline value. We also can do the same thing with a standard hydrogen electrode to figure out standard electric cell potential of different elements.

Thatâs the funny thing about life to me, is that everything is relative! How would you know the color red if you didnât know that there is more than one color, how would you know what light is if you didnât know what darkness is? How would you know what a rock is if everything was a rock. How would you know what anything is unless you have something else to compare it to?

Everything is Relative!

**alplod**#8806

I actually always wonder if other people perceive colors the same way I do. I know how red looks like, but does it look the same for everyone else?

I actually have one colorblind friend who learnt he is colorblind when he was about 18! It was a special non severe case of colorblind where he cannot tell if SOME shades of red and green are different.

Something to think aboutâŚ

**alexx55**#8807

I just got DoomedâŚ @galaxydueler i feel empty inside, is it supposed to be like this

**ryousen**#8808

But what I intended to say was not that it is knowlege *about* the world, but that it *is* global knowlege; the meaning of âobjectiveâ is that its non-changing, not that its world-bound

This point is what Descartes mentions in his argument about how, after your own existance, math is the next closest thing to be surely real, exactly because it doesnt depend on any sense or any connection to the world, and even though its inside each mathematicianâs mind, it will nevertheless be true and the same to all mathematicians that work with the same axioms