I think I flagged your post by accident. Sorry

No, but it would make sense to state that it is universally true that observers view events differently.

When I say universal, I am referring to that which is. Sort of like how the world would look if you were a god.

"The objective/subjective distinction doesn't have anything to do with universality" Is this objectively true?

Is that objectively true?

Well for something to be objectively true it would have to be true for universally, wouldn't it?

If i do the same thing again that is 8. If i die tommorow and never do this process again and at the same time have never heard of the term 12 i might conclude that `12 doesn't exist. — christian2017

I get what you're trying to get at, but I think this is a very weak analogy.

Any time someone makes a claim about some state-of-affairs that is the same for everyone - like the claim that there is no objective truth - then that is an objective truth claim. The claim defeats itself. — Harry Hindu

Would adding the caveat of 'there is no objective truth, except for this statement' be non-contradictory?

...using OP's argument that X+1>X, — curiousnewbie


What he said was:

(if it was size X, it is now size X+1, meaning X was not infinite) — Devans99


Which is just false. Infinity plus one is still infinity.

What you propose here is quite different. — Banno

You are correct, what I worded was different to what OP actually said. I did that out of sheer laziness, will edit it.

I'll leave this alone then, It seems as though it has just as much to do with semantics as it does logic.

Do you make a distinction between truth and objective truth, or do you treat them as one?

Shouldn't it then be obvious to you that I'd not be saying that "There is no objective truth" is objectively true? — Terrapin Station

So then why would you claim something you didn't believe?

"There is no objective truth" or "No statements are objectively true" — SophistiCat

So would that mean that the statement itself is not objectively true?

Go back to Bitter Crank's question - how do you identify an objective truth? — Banno

I have no idea how a person would determine objective truth, or truth if you will, but I can't deny that it exists just because I don't know how I would determine it.

"No statements are true except for this one" is not contradictory... just false. — Banno

So if is either false or contradictory then to state 'there is no objective truth'?

Somebody that didn't believe in objective truth would not believe that, and hence would be liberated from a potential contradiction — andrewk

If they didn't believe in objective truth then they could not possibly believe in the veracity of their own statement.

'There is no objective truth apart from this statement'. This is not contradictory. — Devans99

I don't see how adding that caveat makes the statement less contradictory. For me to believe you I would have to believe that it is universally true that there is no objective truth, which is a truth. It still feels like a contradiction.

"Of course they would also need to say "I don't believe in objective truth" rather than the "There is no objective truth" "

But that is just semantics really, to say you don't believe something to be true is interchangeable with thinking. And if a person added the caveat that it was just their opinion, that would suggest they have doubts about the veracity of their own statement, which makes it an unremarkable declaration.

It is true that you cannot determine objective truth, but your inability to determine it does not mean it can't exist. There is no contradiction there.
But to state that there is no objective truth already presents a contradiction.

'' It is accepted by virtually every mathematician that there are an infinite number of negative integers, there are also an infinite number number of positive integers. The number of integers is greater than the number of negative integers (by the number of positive integers), despite all of these being an infinite number.

That is the standard definition of infinity and by it, some infinities are contained within others.''

Could it be argued that since the universe is all we know and nothing exists outside of it by definition, it can't be enclosed by anything larger than it. So in a sense it would be the ultimate infinity and not part of a subset. Since the universe is expanding, using OP's argument that "if it was size X, it is now size X+1, meaning X was not infinite", then the universe by definition is finite.

When I mentioned yahoo answers, I meant that in terms of the quality of the post. Yahoo answers in the early days was a site where people could ask engaging questions, and it later turned into a site where people would ask 'why do all X voters have bad breath/are ugly etc?'.

The original post seems to just be a psychoanalysis of Christians, and not really intended for actual philosophical discussion but rather to insult them. But even if it was not intended to offend, I still don't see how it's a philosophical question.

Admittedly I am new to the site, so perhaps I don't correctly understand what topics come under the purview of the philosophy forum, but I fail to see how your question is a philosophical one. It seems like the type of question that would be asked on yahoo answers. I don't say this because I am personally offended-because I'm not-I say this because I have noticed that some of the topics in the forums are really just people wanting a soap box for their political views.

The alternative to ad populum in this case is to go with the opinion of a minority. If you say it is fallacious to go with the majority just because they are the majority, why is a minority's opinion any better than a majority?

Ultimately all these discussions about the mind-body problem are intellectual, and you are right, one shouldn't spend their entire existence thinking about their existence when they could just be living. Nevertheless, the gist of your post seems to be that we should simply not think about this problem because we can just live it instead, please correct me if I am wrong. With your computer analogy, I thought you were going to make the point that a great programmer still wouldn't know what would show up on his computer screen even if they knew what every circuit and electrical signal etc was but you didn't. Your analogy is akin to someone working on some equation that takes a decade to solve and that tells them what the weather will be like in the following week. I don't feel that that is what I am doing.
I know such questions have few practical purposes, to me they are posited in order to understand the nature of what we can and can't know.

I would argue that on most objective measures some works of art are better than others. For example, some works of music are more complex if you want to define complex as meaning a piece has rhythm, beat, melody etc. You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure .

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that there is some God-like outside observer that knows and stores the information and also knows what it is your thouoghts.The question is purely hypothetical and is less about finding an answer and more about exploring limits of what we can know.

If we cannot solve it even if we were to have ALL possible knowledge and information at our disposal, then does it logically follow that we can never solve it? So is the answer then that we will never solve the mind-body problem?

Not trying to be a troll or to be specious, but if absolute truth does not exist, does that mean that your statement that 'Absolute truth is impossible' is also false? Is that a contradictory statement, or can it be possible that the statement is the only exception to the claim?