cheesehead,

[QUOTE]Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).[/QUOTE]As you wish.

In an inconsistent system, every statement is true.

So, take any true fact F, in your system S.

Fact F is consistent with the hypothesis that "S is inconsistent". But this consistency does not, [i]a priori[/i], back up the hypothesis that S is inconsistent.

[Ala Godel, we can even define consistency inside of S, if S is complicated enough.]

If you want a concrete example, take ZFC, or take Euclid's axioms, etc...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197720]Let's get "objective" straightened out.[/quote]I'm happy to adopt the definition, except the part about "perceptible to all observers". From dictionary.com is the following definition, which I think is a better fit: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." An item which is objective "can be known" but does not necessarily have to known, or even perceptible to all observers.

[quote]By "objective", I wish to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.[/QUOTE]It seems to me that if an object exists outside the mind then this does not remove the possibility of (self-)deception concerning the object; only some forms of (self-)deception. Especially since, ultimately, our knowledge of the objective interacts with our subjective selves and experiences. (Or if you are a believer in John Locke's philosophy, all our knowledge of everything comes from our subjective experience.) Anyway, I might be going a little off-topic there, so sorry about that.

I understand the point that "objective objects" exist as they are, independent of what we think they should be like, or deceive ourselves (intentionally, or not) into thinking they are like.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197738]I'm happy to adopt the definition, except the part about "perceptible to all observers".[/quote]I interpreted that as "potentially perceptible to all observers", not that it was mandatory that it be perceptible to all observers. It would be perceptible to all observers who were in a position to be reasonably capable of observing it. It wouldn't require that an object be visible to a blind observer, that a microscopic/telescopic object be visible to an observer without a microscope/telescope, or that a dyslexic observer see all letters in a word in the same order as a nondyslexic observer.

Can you accept it that way?

[quote]I understand the point that "objective objects" exist as they are, independent of what we think they should be like, or deceive ourselves (intentionally, or not) into thinking they are like.[/quote]Okay.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU[/url]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197743]I interpreted that as "potentially perceptible to all observers", not that it was mandatory that it be perceptible to all observers. It would be perceptible to all observers who were in a position to be reasonably capable of observing it. It wouldn't require that an object be visible to a blind observer, that a microscopic/telescopic object be visible to an observer without a microscope/telescope, or that a dyslexic observer see all letters in a word in the same order as a nondyslexic observer.

Can you accept it that way?[/QUOTE]Those were some of the cases I was thinking about. But there are a few more that make me still a little squeamish about the use of the word "all." How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197750]How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?[/quote]What I'm concerned about (regarding deleting "all") is evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview.

What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197867]What I'm concerned about (regarding deleting "all") is evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview.

What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?[/QUOTE]I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic. As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion, I don't mind continuing my thoughts here. But this is just to tell you that these thoughts are way off-topic, and I'm more interested in your response to my previous posts about consistency and rewording some things you've said.

First, I don't like adding to definitions qualities that may or may not be present in the object being defined. So, from that point of view, I would even find the phrase "potentially observable" to be problematic because, [i]a priori[/i], we don't know that all of the objective universe is observable. (Of course, we would have no knowledge of the non-observable part. So I didn't make a big stink about that.) Things like alternate dimensions which (according to some scientists) are objectively there, but which we will likely never be able to observe directly, might also qualify here.

Second, I'm uncomfortable with universal qualifiers, unless I'm very very sure that the property is truly universal. That's part of one of the reasons I didn't like your initial statement about there being "[b]none[/b] the other way."

Third, I believe there are objective things in the universe that happen very very rarely. On the order of "big bang rare". Once-in-a-trillion-years rare. Would it be fair to say those events are potentially observable to all observers? [Maybe so, maybe not. But I don't want to get into an argument on that point.]

Fourth, along the lines of the first issue, it might be the case that there are one-way observables in the universe. A hypothetical example might be that there are pocket universes we can look in on (because they emit some sort of measurable particles) but which we cannot interact with in any way. So the people in those pockets cannot observe us, even though we are objective beings. [A similar issue is brought up in the movie [i]The Thirteenth Floor[/i], where the question is asked: if we make a machine which simulates life, are those simulations objective intelligent beings? If so, can they observe anything outside of the simulation? Could we just be simulations in someone's computer?]

Anyway, regarding your concern about "evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview" let me say the following. I do not want us to conflate "measurements of the objective universe" with "counting as evidence, from those measurements, statements about the universe." If we avoid doing that, I think we should be fine. Now, if you further had concerns with a universe in which some people could perform measurements which others could not because of a certain worldview...I wouldn't know how to address that concern. Would we have built the LHC without a certain worldview about how to perform measurements on the universe? Has everyone been able to perform those same measurements? *shrug* Those are very hard and philosophically difficult questions to answer, I think.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197937]I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic. As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion, I don't mind continuing my thoughts here. But this is just to tell you that these thoughts are way off-topic, and I'm more interested in your response to my previous posts about consistency and rewording some things you've said.[/quote]"This stuff" and "these thoughts" are too vague an identifier for me to work with. Can you please include at least post numbers instead of just "my previous", so we (I, anyway) won't flounder around just to figure out where ... ?

In post #247, you wrote,

"We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another"

and

"I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, [I]a priori[/I], disqualifies all testimony as evidence. If you disagree with this, then I think we've finally hit upon our fundamental difference."

To me, your use of "fundamentally/fundamental" meant it was important to clarify what I had written that you were referring to. I realized that I'd been slightly careless about some wording in that part, so I set about trying to straighten that out.

To me, all I've written since post #247 has been a continuous effort at that clarification about something [I]you[/I] deemed "fundamental" -- not off-topic at all. I intended to keep writing about what you deemed to be "fundamental" until you declared that the matter was resolved to your satisfaction. I'm trying to be guided by [I]your[/I] idea of what is "fundamental".

So, I'm shocked by your "off-topic" and "way off-topic" declarations, which seem to me to be an abrupt switch from "fundamental" to "off-topic" on your part.

Apparently, to you, somewhere after post #247 what I wrote went "fairly off-topic" and then "way off-topic". I need you to identify what it is that you deem off-topic and what you deem "fundamental", because [I]your dividing line is not at all obvious to me[/I].

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197937] As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion,[/quote]
You mean ignoring poignant hints like:

[quote=__HRB__;197744][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU"][COLOR=#810081]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU[/COLOR][/URL][/quote]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwJ2rjUSdc[/URL]

marh :

God is God !

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjyjrc_Gkg&feature=player_embedded[/url]

ww

[QUOTE=davieddy;197976]You mean ignoring poignant hints like [a u-tube of muppets singing a song].[/QUOTE]Poignant?! Maybe if you're drunk. LOL!

But yes. That does not count as "holding a discussion" in my mind. Maybe more like a "drive-by-shooting."

----------------------------------

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]Apparently, to you, somewhere after post #247 what I wrote went "fairly off-topic" and then "way off-topic".[/QUOTE]No. What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions.

In other words, even if you completely rejected each and every reason for my dislike of the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" I would rather accept that phrase as part of the definition of objective (for the sake of discussion) than to get sidetracked on discussing my points.

So, if you still want to keep it as part of the definition, just let me know.

[QUOTE]"This stuff" and "these thoughts" are too vague an identifier for me to work with. Can you please include at least post numbers instead of just "my previous", so we (I, anyway) won't flounder around just to figure out where ... ?[/QUOTE]1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")

2. I would like to know what you think about whether consistency implies evidence, now that I've given you that (counter-)example from 1st order logic. (See my posts #249 and #254.)