Of course, we must take into account everything we deem relevant in the current condition, including the subjective state of our mind, to make an estimate of what is reasonably probable, but all we can achieve is an expression of probability. How does probability relate to truth? There’s a one in six chance of rolling a six. That means, if I role the die six hundred times I may collect a hundred sixes, or maybe 99, or 101. It’s likely to be around 100 but the result may be anywhere from 0 to 600. There is no truth to be found when estimating what might happen, but the expression of probability (1/6) is a truth since it’s an expression of the shape of the die as it exists right now.

Likewise, the much more complicated probability concerning your next sentence, if it is to be objectively true, it must reflect all present relevant elements. (The ones you mentioned seem relevant and yes, you must also understand how they are connected to a likely outcome.) An estimate of the probability of a future event, as far as it is objectively true, is a correct assessment of the current state of affairs. — Congau

We keep going around in circles here. You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’.

Our estimate of the current state of affairs is a more accurate perspective of objective truth insofar as it takes all possibilities into account and then reduces the information to what is subjectively relevant to our estimated ‘current’ position. Equally, our estimate of a future state of affairs, while less certain, is still a more accurate perspective of objective truth insofar as it takes all possibilities into account and then reduces the information to what is subjectively relevant to our estimated future position as a probabilistic prediction of effort and attention requirements.

These are both temporally subjective views of what exists regardless of temporal location. It is the latter that I consider to be a more accurate view of objective truth - in that it has discarded less possibilities as irrelevant. It describes something akin to a quantum ‘superposition’ in relation to objective truth. This is my point: we need to recognise this probabilistic superposition as the location from which the brain will always act, regardless of the reasoned ‘current’ position that follows. The brain does this because it is more accurate, long term, in relation to objective truth.

You keep referring to what we can ‘express as truth’, but this is far from objective. What we can express as truth is less accurate than what truth we express in our being, regardless of our awareness of it as truth.

When I talk about probability, it isn’t only in the mathematical sense. I’m not suggesting that a numerical value is what is true. Probability in quantum mechanics isn’t a numerical value such as a percentage. It’s an irreducible equation, which in a non-mathematical sense is an expression of a relationship. It is the relationship that is true, regardless of what value we attribute to each variable.

If you were to actually particularize it and ask about, say, absolute truth or objectivity in the context of game strategy the discussion becomes a little more honed and insightful. — BitconnectCarlos

Can you develop this thought further? I agree with you that abstract terminology is not very useful until we see how it is applied in the context of the game. [You may enjoy reading about game theory if you haven't already]. The game has rules, as does nature. Violate the rules, and you are penalized or maybe even lose the game entirely, i.e., die.

Of course, in game theory, the player is focused on a calculation of the optimal outcome given the odds. In this sense, the absolute truth is always expressed as a relative value, and so the algorithm for the best decision is a mathematical expression of probability. Is this mathematical expression what you're referring to as the "absolute?" The problem is that math is not the reality, but a set of symbolic expressions that describe reality. In using the number "one" is there a corresponding "thing" that is a singularity that exists independently of the number, or are we just stacking abstractions? Is it an absolute truth that there is one and only one BitconnectCarlos? As far as we know, yes. But at this level of gameplay, the rules are trivial. Kick it up a few notches and the "absolute truth" issue is more apparent: "BitconnectCarlos has an immortal spirit." You'll find a number of religions that will assert that truth on your behalf. Apply game theory probability to that proposition, and see where it gets you. Still, people will cite "Pascal's wager" as if the math indeed supported the proposition. But now you have a religious authority that is defining the rules of the game, and not only that, but assigning the probabilities according to a rule book called the Bible, or the Koran, or Torah, or the Upanishads, etc.

So, my bottom line is that game theory [or mathematical reduction-ism] is great at addressing one limited class of questions but lousy for the big question of what is "absolute" truth. Please share any disagreement.

Probability in quantum mechanics isn’t a numerical value such as a percentage. It’s an irreducible equation, which in a non-mathematical sense is an expression of a relationship. It is the relationship that is true, regardless of what value we attribute to each variable. — Possibility

Can’t any probability in principle be expressed as a numerical value? We do it very inaccurately, of course. We say a great chance or a small chance, but that suggests that it could conceivably be translated into a percentage. 90% = very probable, 99% = almost certain. It doesn’t make it more meaningful and the numbers suggest an accuracy that we don’t possess, but it can be done in principle. If the probability for x to happen is greater than for y to happen, that already indicates the same principle as a percentage.

You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’. — Possibility

It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing.
A believer in determinism can logically claim that the future is objectively existent. For him it wouldn’t really make sense to talk about probability; everything is 100% or 0%, even the chance of rolling a six. He may give it a percentage estimate to express his ignorance, though (there’s a 17% chance of rolling a six) just like we may give a percentage estimate to express our uncertainty about something in the past. (I’m quite sure it really happened, 90% sure) but that is not to be confused with an expression of probability.
Probability as future occurrence cannot be an expression of truth since that would suggest that truth can be manifold, but probability as rooted in the present is one (one state of affairs)

Can’t any probability in principle be expressed as a numerical value? We do it very inaccurately, of course. We say a great chance or a small chance, but that suggests that it could conceivably be translated into a percentage. 90% = very probable, 99% = almost certain. It doesn’t make it more meaningful and the numbers suggest an accuracy that we don’t possess, but it can be done in principle. If the probability for x to happen is greater than for y to happen, that already indicates the same principle as a percentage. — Congau

In principle, I suppose it can. This is likely a misunderstanding on my part. Probability is a mathematical reduction of potentiality, and is determined by assigning a numerical value to the probability of all possibilities (assuming they’re all known). The uncertainty of saying a ‘great chance’ or a ‘small chance’ suggests the irreducibility of this potentiality, because our perception of it (our knowing the existence, let alone the probability of all possibilities) is limited. So when we say ‘I’m 90% sure it really happened’, this is not really probability, is it? It’s an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to a limited perception of potentiality. Still, as such it remains an expression of truth from that limited position. There is no objective reason why this can’t be the same for future events.

It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing. — Congau

Well that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity.

A believer in determinism can logically claim that the future is objectively existent. For him it wouldn’t really make sense to talk about probability; everything is 100% or 0%, even the chance of rolling a six. He may give it a percentage estimate to express his ignorance, though (there’s a 17% chance of rolling a six) just like we may give a percentage estimate to express our uncertainty about something in the past. (I’m quite sure it really happened, 90% sure) but that is not to be confused with an expression of probability.
Probability as future occurrence cannot be an expression of truth since that would suggest that truth can be manifold, but probability as rooted in the present is one (one state of affairs) — Congau

Why can’t truth be manifold? The way I see it, the future is objectively existent, but as one of countless possibilities, the probabilities of which are necessarily interrelated at various levels. I’m not talking alternate spatial dimensions or many possible worlds. Just as there can be multiple possible electrons equidistant from a nucleus, there can also be multiple possible experiences existing at an equal temporal location in my future.

I can say ‘I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow’ based not just on what I have observed/measured, but also informed by familiar patterns of relative probability among countless possibilities. That is an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to my limited perception of potentiality. It is an expression of potential truth from my limited position, and exists in the potential future relative to that position. This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true.

This is why we conceptualise the world; because it enables us to construct these complex interrelations of potentiality according to their relative, irreducible value in spacetime, without the energy or attention requirements to continually process this amount of information rendering our existence prohibitive.

that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity. — Possibility

Please explain. Distance between here and there only refers to the relationship between subject and object. When something is objective, there is no subject and no distance, right? The relativity of time and space also excludes an intrinsic meaning of distance, doesn’t it?

So when we say ‘I’m 90% sure it really happened’, this is not really probability, is it? It’s an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to a limited perception of potentiality. Still, as such it remains an expression of truth from that limited position. There is no objective reason why this can’t be the same for future events. — Possibility

Right. That’s not about probability only about individual uncertainty, and as such it is a piece of psychology and therefore it has objective truth to it. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. The state of someone’s mind is an objective truth (although not available for anyone else). “I’m 90% sure it happened yesterday” and “I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow” are equivalent as a statement about objective truth. The truth condition is referring to the mind of this “I” and not to the event in question.

I can say ‘I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow’ based not just on what I have observed/measured, but also informed by familiar patterns of relative probability among countless possibilities. That is an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to my limited perception of potentiality. It is an expression of potential truth from my limited position, and exists in the potential future relative to that position. This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true. — Possibility

The accuracy of that 90% estimate is not dependent on anything outside of you. You may have had a dream or you may be intoxicated, you have that level of certainty whatever caused it. Of course, I would trust you prediction more if I knew you were basing it on observation and knowledge of familiar patterns and the more exhaustive the more trustworthy, but the probability as such cannot reach an accurate estimate when the potential information is infinite. The chance of rolling a six is 1/6 and that is a true and accurate estimate when occurring in clinical isolation (just assuming that necessary preconditions, like intention to roll, are already met) but the kind of potentiality you are talking about aims at incorporating as much information as possible, and of course the amount of information can never be exhaustive so the accuracy of the prediction can never be definite, that is to say objective. It depends on how much information you, the subject, have been able to collect. “This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true”, you say, but that can’t exist even in theory since the complexity of the relation is literally infinite.

Why can’t truth be manifold? The way I see it, the future is objectively existent, but as one of countless possibilities — Possibility

It defies basic logic to think of truth as manifold. Either A is true, or A is not true and switching to future tense makes no difference: Either A will happen, or A will not happen; both can’t be true.

Sure, expressed as a possibility they are not mutually exclusive. A may happen, and A may not happen.
But “may” and “may not” don’t constitute separate truths. In fact they are both included in the exact same truth condition. Saying “A may happen” not only does not exclude “A may not happen”, it implies it. If it is true that A may happen, it follows logically that A may not happen.

Possibility must be understood as one, covering one area of possible events. Imagine a circle: inside the circle there are an infinite number of points representing possible events distinguished from each other by tiny details, but the mathematical point is non-existent as such, only the area exists, and it is one. Outside the circle is the rest of the universe: it represents everything that cannot possibly happen; it is what is not true.
For the future there is only one truth, what is possible, and that one truth is existent as one in the present.

It defies basic logic to think of truth as manifold. Either A is true, or A is not true and switching to future tense makes no difference: Either A will happen, or A will not happen; both can’t be true.

Sure, expressed as a possibility they are not mutually exclusive. A may happen, and A may not happen.
But “may” and “may not” don’t constitute separate truths. In fact they are both included in the exact same truth condition. Saying “A may happen” not only does not exclude “A may not happen”, it implies it. If it is true that A may happen, it follows logically that A may not happen.

Possibility must be understood as one, covering one area of possible events. Imagine a circle: inside the circle there are an infinite number of points representing possible events distinguished from each other by tiny details, but the mathematical point is non-existent as such, only the area exists, and it is one. Outside the circle is the rest of the universe: it represents everything that cannot possibly happen; it is what is not true.
For the future there is only one truth, what is possible, and that one truth is existent as one in the present. — Congau

I’m not talking about logic, though. Objective truth, expressed as a manifold possibility, isn’t about separate ‘truths’, and from memory I have yet to employ the plural of the term here (if I have, it was unintentional). What is true is this possibility: A may happen, A may not happen.

There seems to be some contradiction here. If you are imagining a circle excluding what is not true, then you are not understanding possibility as one, but as one of. I agree that saying ‘A may happen’ does imply that ‘A may not happen’, and it is this binary possibility (1,0) that is objectively true as one. The circle you are imagining refers instead to a subjective perception of limited potential: what CAN (possibly) happen is isolated from what CANNOT (possibly) happen. Whether this circular distinction is determined by logic, morality or some other limited perspective, it is a subjective limitation imposed on truth.

You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’. — Possibility

It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing. — Congau

that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity.
— Possibility
Please explain. Distance between here and there only refers to the relationship between subject and object. When something is objective, there is no subject and no distance, right? The relativity of time and space also excludes an intrinsic meaning of distance, doesn’t it? — Congau

When something is objective, there is no subject, but there is still relative distance between objects. And that distance makes a difference to what subjectively constitutes ‘the past’ for either object. My point was that what exists ‘right now’ or ‘in the past’ is not objective, because it refers to this relationship between subject and object, for which it does matter how distant.

Right. That’s not about probability only about individual uncertainty, and as such it is a piece of psychology and therefore it has objective truth to it. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. The state of someone’s mind is an objective truth (although not available for anyone else). “I’m 90% sure it happened yesterday” and “I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow” are equivalent as a statement about objective truth. The truth condition is referring to the mind of this “I” and not to the event in question. — Congau

I don’t think you can dismiss this as ‘a piece of psychology’ not available for anyone else. How else does a future event exist, except in relation to someone’s mind? The state of someone’s mind is available as potential information: in their thoughts, words and actions. The information is uncertain and manifold, but it IS potentially available.

The accuracy of that 90% estimate is not dependent on anything outside of you. You may have had a dream or you may be intoxicated, you have that level of certainty whatever caused it. Of course, I would trust you prediction more if I knew you were basing it on observation and knowledge of familiar patterns and the more exhaustive the more trustworthy, but the probability as such cannot reach an accurate estimate when the potential information is infinite. The chance of rolling a six is 1/6 and that is a true and accurate estimate when occurring in clinical isolation (just assuming that necessary preconditions, like intention to roll, are already met) but the kind of potentiality you are talking about aims at incorporating as much information as possible, and of course the amount of information can never be exhaustive so the accuracy of the prediction can never be definite, that is to say objective. It depends on how much information you, the subject, have been able to collect. — Congau

Yes. We already dismissed the likelihood of an accurate estimate when we eliminated certainty from the discussion.

“This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true”, you say, but that can’t exist even in theory since the complexity of the relation is literally infinite. — Congau

The possibility of infinite complexity does not preclude its existence, only our capacity to understand it.

The only truth in a question of possibility is what can happen and that is determined by nature. A nasturtium seed cannot become an apple tree, but John Smith can become the king of France. In social science pretty much anything is potentially true as long as it doesn’t contradict the possibilities of nature and formal logic.

All sciences deal with truth and if a social scientist takes it upon himself to investigate John Smith’s royal potential, he aims at producing a truth statement. His conclusion, for example one in a billion, is a truth statement. It claims to have investigated all normal paths to royalty and have found them blocked. The procedure is the same as for natural science, only that there’s an infinity of contingencies that can never be exhausted, therefore one is left with an expression of probability.

But how are we ever to distinguish the truth in a statement of probability. What’s the difference between one in a billion and fifty/fifty? Whatever happens in either case doesn’t prove anything. It may rain tomorrow and John Smith may become the king of France, and those statements are equally true. Only when looking at the state of things as they now are (the actuality) does the probability express a truth. In the potential as directing towards the future, there is no truth.

The only truth in a question of possibility is what can happen and that is determined by nature. A nasturtium seed cannot become an apple tree, but John Smith can become the king of France. In social science pretty much anything is potentially true as long as it doesn’t contradict the possibilities of nature and formal logic.

All sciences deal with truth and if a social scientist takes it upon himself to investigate John Smith’s royal potential, he aims at producing a truth statement. His conclusion, for example one in a billion, is a truth statement. It claims to have investigated all normal paths to royalty and have found them blocked. The procedure is the same as for natural science, only that there’s an infinity of contingencies that can never be exhausted, therefore one is left with an expression of probability.

But how are we ever to distinguish the truth in a statement of probability. What’s the difference between one in a billion and fifty/fifty? Whatever happens in either case doesn’t prove anything. It may rain tomorrow and John Smith may become the king of France, and those statements are equally true. Only when looking at the state of things as they now are (the actuality) does the probability express a truth. In the potential as directing towards the future, there is no truth. — Congau

You keep returning to logical and actual truth, as if they’re the only way something can be true. But the meaning of truth refers to the accuracy or reliability of an existing relation, which if it aims to be objective must be freed of the constraints of actuality, logic or time.

The etymology of the word ‘true’ suggests a gradual broadening of its definition to expand the concept in relation to meaning. Initially it meant ‘loyal and steadfast’, ‘honest’, or ‘faithful’. Later, the concept expanded, and the definition broadened to ‘accurate or exact’ in terms of relative positioning or direction.

More recently it has been defined in broader terms as an agreement of subjective position in relation to reality. I understand that for practical purposes, this is truth. If we constrain our position to what is logical, what is actual or what is now, then we can reach an agreement on that relative position. But it is not, and cannot be, objective as such. It is an agreement between limited subjective positions that ‘seems’ true because we’re excluding the possibility of a position existing beyond that limitation. If that’s as broad as you can understand the meaning of truth, then you would need to concede that there is no objective truth. If, however, you believe that an objective truth exists, then its objectivity would need to be free of all subjective constraints including logic, actuality and time. In this sense, the meaning of objective truth is an undifferentiated relation to objective reality. Truth is reality.

The problem as I see it, though, is that for ‘reality’ to have any meaning for you, it must be viewed from a position. So at this point, you will continue to argue that objective truth is a position, and we will go around in circles again. You’re unable (or unwilling) to break free of logic, actuality or time enough to consider the possible existence of an undifferentiated relation. It’s meaningless, yes - it exists and doesn’t exist. I recognise that this makes no sense to you, but this is where we need to be in order to understand the pure possibility of objectivity. It’s essentially a koan.

The etymology of the word ‘true’ suggests a gradual broadening of its definition to expand the concept in relation to meaning. Initially it meant ‘loyal and steadfast’, ‘honest’, or ‘faithful’. Later, the concept expanded, and the definition broadened to ‘accurate or exact’ in terms of relative positioning or direction. — Possibility

Looking at the etymology of this word can only lead us astray. Why a certain sound has come to represent a certain concept is philologically interesting and in a few cases, but far from all, it may tell us something about human psychology (most of the time it’s a result of a rather arbitrary development). In philosophy, however, it is desirable to strive for pure concepts that are untainted by cultural connotations of words. That is often not possible, lamentably, but in the case of this concept “true” I’d say it is. Any language would have a concept of it even if there may not be an exact one to one translation of the English “true” in all languages. The philosophically reductive concept refers to what is correct and really existent as opposed to what is incorrect, a lie and a phantasy.

If, however, you believe that an objective truth exists, then its objectivity would need to be free of all subjective constraints including logic, actuality and time. In this sense, the meaning of objective truth is an undifferentiated relation to objective reality. Truth is reality. — Possibility

How can you call logic a subjective constraint? Two plus two equals four whatever anyone thinks or whether there is anyone there to think at all.
Actuality is reality and real reality is as objective as anything can get. (In reality France doesn’t have a king although potentially it has.)
As for time, that is the reality of the human condition and a thing in itself beyond time in the Kantian sense, cannot be given a meaningful truth value at all. I think you are still operating within the categories of the world as we know it, though, so your inclusion of all mutually contradictory possibilities as truth would still be subjective if you think objectivity can only be found beyond time and space.

The problem as I see it, though, is that for ‘reality’ to have any meaning for you, it must be viewed from a position. So at this point, you will continue to argue that objective truth is a position, and we will go around in circles again. You’re unable (or unwilling) to break free of logic, actuality or time enough to consider the possible existence of an undifferentiated relation. It’s meaningless, yes - it exists and doesn’t exist. I recognise that this makes no sense to you, but this is where we need to be in order to understand the pure possibility of objectivity. It’s essentially a koan. — Possibility

It is certainly not a position. It is not even a view. Your “objectivity” is one of ever-changing perspectives, is it? It’s a mixture of meaning from all possible and impossible standpoints, but there’s always some standpoint, so for you objectivity seems to be based on subjectivity. You disregard logic since all subjective observers are not logical, and their view must also be taken into account. You mix all possible positions and conclude that reality is not viewed from a position.

“The view from nowhere” is quite non-sensical because it tries to include two contradictory ideas. To make something objective we have to do away with any idea of “a view”; there is no position. Logic is not a position, it is eternal reality; it exists without anyone looking at anything from anywhere.

If you admit that it is meaningless, how can you insist on its objective existence? Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. The moment something depends on something else to be conceptualized as existing, it is not objective. “It is soft” – depending on something being hard and a person judging. “Soft” is meaningless in itself – not objective.

Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. — Congau

Actually I don't think this is true. Objectivity is definitionally and conceptually linked dyadically with subjectivity. A thing is objective if it is arrived at through the intersubjective process of critical consensus (Popper). A thing is objective if it forms a part of the essential shared social milieu (Mead).

It is certainly not a position. It is not even a view. Your “objectivity” is one of ever-changing perspectives, is it? It’s a mixture of meaning from all possible and impossible standpoints, but there’s always some standpoint, so for you objectivity seems to be based on subjectivity. You disregard logic since all subjective observers are not logical, and their view must also be taken into account. You mix all possible positions and conclude that reality is not viewed from a position. — Congau

Let me clarify a few points here. First, it is one’s understanding of objectivity that is based on intersubjectivity. Second, I’m not disregarding logic, only acknowledging its limited position. Third, reality can only be viewed from a position, but my conclusion is that it exists regardless of any position. It is in relating to another’s subjective position relative to reality that we can strive to understand and integrate the difference between the two, and gain a more accurate perspective of reality in the process.

A thing is objective if it is arrived at through the intersubjective process of critical consensus (Popper) — Pantagruel

That is probably referring to the scientific method.

A thing is objective if it forms a part of the essential shared social milieu (Mead). — Pantagruel

That would be the practical meaning of objectivity. A common reference point is sufficient in our daily understanding of reality. We don’t have to go all the way back to a philosophical thing in itself every time we identify a common object. “This is a computer” we say in our social milieu. “This is a typewriter with a tv screen” one might say in another. Both are objectively true, although there is one underlying objectivity.

I’m not disregarding logic, only acknowledging its limited position. — Possibility

Sorry, I should have said downplaying logic.
But again, I don’t understand how you can do that. Anything that is true must be logical. The law of non-contradiction just can’t be violated. How can you call that a mere "subjective constraint"?

That is probably referring to the scientific method. — Congau

It's actually Popper's own and central formulation, called critical or scientific realism.

Sorry, I should have said downplaying logic.
But again, I don’t understand how you can do that. Anything that is true must be logical. The law of non-contradiction just can’t be violated. How can you call that a mere "subjective constraint"? — Congau

I don’t think I’m downplaying it, either. I didn’t refer to it as ‘mere’ - that’s you downplaying subjective constraint, not me. I’m well aware of its significance; I’m questioning its necessity in relation to objective truth; not in relation to a statement of truth.

The LNC applies to propositional statements: stating a relational position. Anything that is true from a logical perspective must be logical. But the impossibility of what is illogical is also true. There is objective truth to the simultaneous possibility AND negation of an illogical existence - no propositional statement need be made to that effect. When you collapse or reduce that information to the false logic of a propositional statement, you assume a logical perspective.

“The view from nowhere” is quite non-sensical because it tries to include two contradictory ideas. To make something objective we have to do away with any idea of “a view”; there is no position. Logic is not a position, it is eternal reality; it exists without anyone looking at anything from anywhere.

If you admit that it is meaningless, how can you insist on its objective existence? Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. The moment something depends on something else to be conceptualized as existing, it is not objective. “It is soft” – depending on something being hard and a person judging. “Soft” is meaningless in itself – not objective. — Congau

Objectively, an undifferentiated relation is both meaningless AND meaningful: it is one’s position that collapses this information either way. The ‘view from nowhere’ is objective because it strives to include two contradicting ideas, rather than assuming a position by selecting one and excluding the other. Show me something that exists ‘alone and in itself’, and I’ll show you where you’re ignoring necessary relations.

There are two ways we can ‘do away with the idea of “a view”’: we can reduce the available information by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that suggests the possibility of an alternative view; OR we can strive to include all possible alternative views. As @Pantagruel suggests, objectivity is inclusive of intersubjective process and critical consensus. What you’re referring to is the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty. My argument is that this critical consensus and accompanying reduction of information, while necessarily practical, also detracts from its claim to objectivity.

There are two ways we can ‘do away with the idea of “a view”’: we can reduce the available information by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that suggests the possibility of an alternative view; OR we can strive to include all possible alternative views. As Pantagruel suggests, objectivity is inclusive of intersubjective process and critical consensus. What you’re referring to is the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty. My argument is that this critical consensus and accompanying reduction of information, while necessarily practical, also detracts from its claim to objectivity. — Possibility

We must distinguish between the method of reaching an idea of what the objective truth might be and objective truth itself. Sure, critical consensus is one important way to reach a semblance of certainty, but whatever it is we are investigating would have been there even if no one had bothered to look at it. Proper objectivity is not related to any subject; no observer at all. Of course, then we can’t really even talk about it, so the moment we start investigating we are in effect giving up the knowledge of total objectivity.

Shifting one’s point of view, imagining other people’s view, engaging in a critical exchange of meaning, getting an understanding potentials and possibilities, all of that constitutes the way to gain insight into all aspects of our world, but it is not the world. The world as it really truly objectively is, is inaccessible to us, and we have to settle for the best possible substitute, which is a critical approach to it through all the multiple tools at our disposal.

But there is a world beyond all the fog of subjective limitations and that’s what we are ultimately trying to catch a glimpse of. We can’t give up that goal even though it is unattainable.

the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty — Possibility

But don't conflate this reductive tendency with the critical activity itself, they are not the same. So your criticism of critical objectivity applies yes to a reductionist criticism but not to criticism per se.