Absolute Fact / Universal Truth

[EnderWiggin]

Facts can be absolutely true.

 

Begin.

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

Question: Are you every single individual on this planet, and know everything about absolutely everything? Because if you are, then I will be happy to accept that assessment.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Question: Are you every single individual on this planet, and know everything about absolutely everything? Because if you are, then I will be happy to accept that assessment.

"dude man what if the universe doesn't see it that way man"

[Achilles]

It's not a subjective question, therefore your qualifier isn't necessary.

 

@Topic: I don't know how one would argue that facts are "true" or not, but facts do exist. Not sure if that helps.

[Adavardes]

If Universal truths exist, we don't know any of them. Humanity cannot, period, be objective enough to construct a universally true concept.

 

When someone can tell me that the green they see is the green that the person next to them sees and prove it, then I'll be willing to concede that there are absolute facts. Otherwise, sorry, but no. I know that might hurt, to think that you can't be irrefutably right about something, but you're an individual in a sea of individuals. Everything is subjective, everything is different, and everyone sees differently from you.

 

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

[EnderWiggin]

Question: Are you every single individual on this planet, and know everything about absolutely everything? Because if you are, then I will be happy to accept that assessment.

There are some facts that are fact - ie true in all cases.

 

Water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fact.

 

Care to try and disprove that one?

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

There are some facts that are fact - ie true in all cases.

 

Water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fact.

 

Care to try and disprove that one?

 

_EW_

 

Chemistry is a concept of humanity, therefore, it, and all variations thereof, can inevitably be wrong. The instruments made to see and identify various forms of molecules and atoms were made by human hands. The way they identify things and define things was made by human hands. Therefore, it has the ability to be wrong.

 

Not saything there are, and I won't argue that some "facts", when presented to most, if not all, human perspectives, can agree on it as "correct". That doesn't mean that what humanity believes to be true is what can be considered a "universal truth". Planet Earth is not Planet Universe.

 

Also, I do believe that chemistry dictates that water can hold very little weight for very long before losing its surface tension. Yet some people, quite a few of them, actually, believe a man walked on water, and are seeking to prove this as fact. Looks like all theories, scientific or otherwise, will always be open to scrutiny. In fact, I believe the exact definition of a theory, scientifically speaking, is:

 

"A fact that is proven with several repeated tests, that is subject to change should new evidence arise to the contrary."

 

Never just assume that you completely understand water. We used to think the world was flat. Look how quickly that changed.

[Achilles]

If Universal truths exist, we don't know any of them.

Please let me know how you indend to support this claim. Since one cannot prove a negative, you may want to consider withdrawing it since it is not provable and therefore speculation on your part.

 

Humanity cannot, period, be objective enough to construct a universally true concept.

If it's a universal concept, then it doesn't require humanities construction. If it is universal, then all we can do is observe and label. Your arguments eats itself.

 

When someone can tell me that the green they see is the green that the person next to them sees and prove it, then I'll be willing to concede that there are absolute facts.

Color is a poor test for this kind of question. Please try again with something that isn't easily frustrated by color blindness or animal species that percieve light differently than humans.

 

Otherwise, sorry, but no. I know that might hurt, to think that you can't be irrefutably right about something, but you're an individual in a sea of individuals. Everything is subjective, everything is different, and everyone sees differently from you.

I find the last part of this difficult to accept. Are you telling me that if me and fifty of my closest friends all run down to the local movie theater, we're not going to able to agree on who starred in the film, what the basic plot points were, or even what lines of dialog were spoken?

 

Surely, I will agree that the movie may affect us all differently. Some of us may like it and others may dislike it, but I don't think who was in it, etc is up for discussion. It either starred Hollywood Actor X or it did not.

 

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

Nothing is true? Does this include your arguments above? If it does not, then you're arguing that your perspective is objective (which you just got finished arguing isn't possible for humans). If it is, then it would seem that your perspective is every bit as susceptible to being dead wrong as anyone elses.

[EnderWiggin]

In fact, I believe the exact definition of a theory, scientifically speaking, is:

 

"A fact that is proven with several repeated tests, that is subject to change should new evidence arise to the contrary."

 

 

Water is not a theory. Water is water because it is made up of hydrogen/oxygen. It's hydrogen/oxygen by definition.

 

Facts are not facts because humans agree on them. Human perspective does not change a fact (but it may change how we view a fact).

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

Please let me know how you indend to support this claim. Since one cannot prove a negative, you may want to consider withdrawing it since it is not provable and therefore speculation on your part.

 

If it's a universal concept, then it doesn't require humanities construction. If it is universal, then all we can do is observe and label. Your arguments eats itself.

 

I find the last part of this difficult to accept. Are you telling me that if me and fifty of my closest friends all run down to the local movie theater, we're not going to able to agree on who starred in the film, what the basic plot points were, or even what lines of dialog were spoken?

 

Surely, I will agree that the movie may affect us all differently. Some of us may like it and others may dislike it, but I don't think who was in it, etc is up for discussion. It either starred Hollywood Actor X or it did not.

 

Nothing is true? Does this include your arguments above? If it does not, then you're arguing that your perspective is objective (which you just got finished arguing isn't possible for humans). If it is, then it would seem that your perspective is every bit as susceptible to being dead wrong as anyone elses.

 

1. All we ever do is speculate and throw evidence around. I can't prove my arguments hold water, but you also can't prove it doesn't. Not absolutely, anyway.

 

2. Exactly. So how can we say that just because our sciences, constructs used for "observing and labeling", are absolute? We can't find absolute truths if we don't have tools with likewise characteristics.

 

3. No, I'm saying that just because you have labels for everything, doesn't mean that what you see is the same. Labels are all well and good, but they're just physical constructs to put mental impulses into a transferable form. It's a simplification, not a basis for proving that it has to absolutely be the same if you all say the same thing.

 

4. Yup. I'm willing to accept that my argument has flaws. Just like yours.

[Achilles]

1. All we ever do is speculate and throw evidence around. I can't prove my arguments hold water, but you also can't prove it doesn't. Not absolutely, anyway.

I don't need to: the burden of proof for your argument is yours, not mine.

 

Either you have a convincing argument for why I should accept that your view makes sense or you do not. If your argument is that "it's all arbitrary", then that means that your arguments themselves fit inside that definition.

 

2. Exactly. So how can we say that just because our sciences, constructs used for "observing and labeling", are absolute? We can't find absolute truths if we don't have tools with likewise characteristics.

BS.

 

All we need is observation and repeatability. And for a great deal of things, we have both in spades.

 

3. No, I'm saying that just because you have labels for everything, doesn't mean that what you see is the same. Labels are all well and good, but they're just physical constructs to put mental impulses into a transferable form. It's a simplification, not a basis for proving that it has to absolutely be the same if you all say the same thing.

Per my earlier example, if we all went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, we would all agree that it starred Brad Pitt. If your argument is foiled by something as fleeting as a recent movie, then I don't know how it could stand up to something timeless and fundamental like mathematics.

 

4. Yup. I'm willing to accept that my argument has flaws. Just like yours.

 

For reasons I've already pointed out, your arguments fail under their own weight and shouldn't be accepted by anyone. Either you can do better or you cannot. If you can, please do so. If you cannot, please move along. Thanks.

[Adavardes]

For reasons I've already pointed out, your arguments fail under their own weight and shouldn't be accepted by anyone. Either you can do better or you cannot. If you can, please do so. If you cannot, please move along. Thanks.

 

I don't believe in absolutes, so how do you seek to discourage me by giving me ultimatums? Just curious as to how you plan to prove something that is all about how things can't be absolutely right or wrong by saying it's wrong.

 

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I don't believe in absolutes, so how do you seek to discourage me by giving me ultimatums? Just curious as to how you plan to prove something that is all about how things can't be absolutely right or wrong by saying it's wrong.

 

you're the one who brought this whole thing to a head in the other thread, and now you're just going to stick your tongue out at it and support your argument with your own argument? classy.

[Achilles]

I don't believe in absolutes, so how do you seek to discourage me by giving me ultimatums? Just curious as to how you plan to prove something that is all about how things can't be absolutely right or wrong by saying it's wrong.

 

It's quite simple: if an argument fails it's own test, then it isn't worth listening to. Your claiming that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute.

[Adavardes]

you're the one who brought this whole thing to a head in the other thread, and now you're just going to stick your tongue out at it and support your argument with your own argument? classy.

 

... What?

 

@ Achilles:

 

So, if my argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, and that no truths absolutely exist insofar as we know, then it's to be dismissed, because it proves itself as possibly wrong? Because I believe I said earlier that mitigating evidence can often made an argument more objective and valid than others, just not to the complete extreme. Philosophers couldn't prove what they were saying when they talked about what society should be constructed like, or how man thinks, but a lot of what they said is still accepted as truth.

 

You're throwing around the "burden of proof", but I fail to see why I should feel the need to prove my argument when the concept is just that: a concept, and it can be flawed. Just like any other, and most certainly like your claims that there are universal truths humanity recognises. If you can prove me wrong to that effect, then the burden of proof is most definately on me, right?

[Q]

Facts can be absolutely true.

Ha-ha. You are correct, sir! [/Ed McMahon]

 

AFAIK the truth is the only constant in a universe of relativity.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

... What?

 

It's quite simple: if an argument fails it's own test, then it isn't worth listening to. Your claiming that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute.

 

^that, if you'd like it in another form.

[Adavardes]

^that, if you'd like it in another form.

 

I never said we should reject all concepts if they aren't absolutely true. My concept is no absolute, this is correct to a certain extent. But the idea that other concepts, indeed, all concepts are similar to it in varying degrees of severity can still be accepted as a possible viewpoint, and even be agreed upon. Simply because something is an absolute doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. Just not completely.

[Achilles]

So, if my argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, and that no truths absolutely exist insofar as we know, then it's to be dismissed, because it proves itself as possibly wrong?

If your argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, then this includes your argument that there are no absolute truths, which means they can exist, no matter how much you wish to protest.

 

Whether you realize it or not, you argument dictates that there must be absolute truths (your argument itself seeks to be one of them).

 

Because I believe I said earlier that mitigating evidence can often made an argument more objective and valid than others, just not to the complete extreme.

There are degrees of subjectivity. Not of objectivity. Per your earlier example with color, we can quibble of whether something is pink, or salmon, or melon, but either 2+2=4 or it does not.

 

Philosophers couldn't prove what they were saying when they talked about what society should be constructed like, or how man thinks, but a lot of what they said is still accepted as truth.

I won't be joining you in the rabbit hole.

 

You're throwing around the "burden of proof", but I fail to see why I should feel the need to prove my argument when the concept is just that: a concept, and it can be flawed.

There is no reason to do so, unless you wish your argument to be seriously considered. If you don't, then there is no reason to post anything further. You made your claim and indicated your desire to do nothing more to defend it. Done and done.

 

Just like any other, and most certainly like your claims that there are universal truths humanity recognises. If you can prove me wrong to that effect, then the burden of proof is most definately on me, right?

The burden of proof is always on the party making a claim. I hope that helps to clear up any remaining confusion.

 

Thanks for your post.

[Adavardes]

If your argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, then this includes your argument that there are no absolute truths, which means they can exist, no matter how much you wish to protest.

 

Never said they couldn't exist. I said they don't exist insofar as WE know. Humanity is too subjective.

 

Whether you realize it or not, you argument dictates that there must be absolute truths (your argument itself seeks to be one of them).

 

Not really. My argument seeks to disprove any absolute truths known to man.

 

There are degrees of subjectivity. Not of objectivity.

 

Pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Subjectivity exists, in varying degrees, to humanity. Humans can't be absolutely objective.

 

There is no reason to do so, unless you wish your argument to be seriously considered. If you don't, then there is no reason to post anything further. You made your claim and indicated your desire to do nothing more to defend it. Done and done.

 

The burden of proof is always on the party making a claim. I hope that helps to clear up any remaining confusion.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

That's neat. Just because you won't seriously consider it because I for some reason can't align it to your qualifications doesn't make it any less valid, I'm afraid. Since the concepts and definitions of "proof", "validity", or "seriously considerable" are all, by the logic of my argument, debatably subjective, then it stands to reason that my point is just as valid as yours. The only difference is, you're willing to dismiss things and deal in absolutes, and I am not.

[Achilles]

Never said they couldn't exist. I said they don't exist insofar as WE know. Humanity is too subjective.

And I'll go back to my second post in this thread and ask how you intend to support this claim. The burden of proof is yours.

 

Not really. My argument seeks to disprove any absolute truths known to man.

Your argument is itself an absolute truth. In order for your argument to be true, it must also be not true. This is why no one it taking your argument seriously (except you).

 

Pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Subjectivity exists, in varying degrees, to humanity. Humans can't be absolutely objective.

And as I've already stated for universal absolutes, they don't have to be. You keep conveniently ignoring that part.

 

That's neat. Just because you won't seriously consider it because I for some reason can't align it to your qualifications doesn't make it any less valid, I'm afraid.

Neither does it tell us why we should take your argument seriously. A lack of evidence for Bigfoot doesn't mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that we should all accept that Bigfoot is real either.

 

Since the concepts and definitions of "proof", "validity", or "seriously considerable" are all, by the logic of my argument, debatably subjective, then it stands to reason that my point is just as valid as yours.

The problem here being that your premises are flawed. No doubt that the conclusion that you've come to is consistent with your argument, but with a flawed argument, all the consistency in the world isn't going to make you right. And that's the point.

 

The only difference is, you're willing to dismiss things and deal in absolutes, and I am not.

Dismiss what? "Things" is a little vague.

[Adavardes]

I'm not out to be right. Maybe I'm not doing this justice, I'm not sure, but I don't care about being right, or about proving anything. I'm making a simple concept, an ideology, made known. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant, because, in context with the logic of the concept, right and wrong is subjective, not absolute. You're willing to dismiss this argument because, and here's the kicker, your concepts of my concept aren't what you think concepts should be.

 

Whether or not you take me seriously doesn't matter to me. I am expressing an opinion, a built-upon philosophy that nothing is an absolute, as far as humanity can tell. And you, as an individual, are trying to tell me that my concept, which is honestly just as valid as yours, which is to say, not all that valid, cannot be a concept that is what you define as valid. We are two opinions fighting over which method of viewing things is correct. So really, this is only going to go in circles from now on, because neither of us know everything, neither of our philosophies or concepts are absolutes, and all we're trying to do is make ourselves feel more justified in having our opinions.

 

That's the point of this whole "There are no universal absolutes". You're a person that sees black and white amidst grey. I don't. For your perspective, and from your logic, you're right, I will concede that. From mine, I'm right. And that's how I see things. Sorry.

[Achilles]

I'm not out to be right. Maybe I'm not doing this justice, I'm not sure, but I don't care about being right, or about proving anything. I'm making a simple concept, an ideology, made known. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant, because, in context with the logic of the concept, right and wrong is subjective, not absolute. You're willing to dismiss this argument because, and here's the kicker, your concepts of my concept aren't what you think concepts should be.

No, I willing to dismiss the argument because it's logically inconsistent. Liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it.

 

Whether or not you take me seriously doesn't matter to me. I am expressing an opinion, a built-upon philosophy that nothing is an absolute, as far as humanity can tell.

"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute. And you are a human.

 

Therefore your argument fails via your own argument. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated.

 

And you, as an individual, are trying to tell me that my concept, which is honestly just as valid as yours, which is to say, not all that valid, cannot be a concept that is what you define as valid.

Since we haven't discussed "my concept" this would appear to be a pretty cheap attempt at a strawman.

 

We are two opinions fighting over which method of viewing things is correct.

Nope, so far I've only pointed out how your view is wrong.

 

So really, this is only going to go in circles from now on, because neither of us know everything, neither of our philosophies or concepts are absolutes, and all we're trying to do is make ourselves feel more justified in having our opinions.

I believe I pointed out that there was nothing further for you to contribute unless you sought to defend your arguments a few posts ago.

 

That's the point of this whole "There are no universal absolutes". You're a person that sees black and white amidst grey. I don't. For your perspective, and from your logic, you're right, I will concede that. From mine, I'm right. And that's how I see things. Sorry.

As always, you are more than welcome to your opinions. Thanks for your post.

[True_Avery]

I have 1 apple. Someone gives me another apple. I now have 2 apples.

 

1+1=2.

 

Please prove to me that I, in fact, have 3 apples. Prove to me that I have 50. You cannot, because I only have 2.

 

Like I said in the other thread:

 

It is fact that you breath air. And by air, we mean a balance of oxygen. You can keep breaking that down to smaller and smaller bits, but it comes back to the same general principle that we breathe air.

 

You can tell me that we breath water or helium. Or that, we have no idea anyway that we breath at all. That breathing is a subjective human construct that, objectively, means nothing, and thus whether we do it or not has nothing to do with our daily lives.

 

The problem with testing this philiosphical theory is that you would die.

 

This has been tested. It is being tested right now as your breath and read this. If you believe differently, then tell me I'm wrong. Or, if you are up to it, prove me wrong.

 

You will be wrong upon the merit that you would be dead from lack of oxygen to the brain.

 

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion. Your opinion can say that you breath and survive off of pure water, but testing that hypothesis would prove you 100% wrong.

 

Now, if we want to get into a discussion about the invisible pink unicorn or God, then the absolute answer to all life and everything starts turning subjective in many ways. Which is why this argument is fair for a debate on things like morality and the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything, and not on scientific, proven fact.

 

Going on Achille's example: You would watch a movie staring Brad Pitt. Subjectively, you could all decide whether or not Brad Pitt was a good actor, a good person, etc etc etc till the world ends, but the fact remains that Brad Pitt was the one that acted in that movie. If you disagree because you think facts are impossible to know, then the Credits have proven your theory wrong.

 

By claiming there are no absolutes, you are making an absolute statement. Your argument eats itself.

 

The fact of the matter is, if you could just deny that there is no such thing as a fact... You would be Neo from the Matrix. You could fly, because there is no such thing as Gravity, because it is a human construct. You can shoot beams of energy out of your hand, because it is a human construct that says you cannot. You could turn into a male or female at will, because male and female are human constructs.

 

I'm not attacking you directly. I am simply pointing out why your argument is almost impossible to support, debate against, or debate for. It is by your own admission, irrational, as you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that we are seemingly incapable of rational, or at least attempted, objective science.

 

Which is why it is difficult to both read, understand, and debate against. As has been stated, the burden of proof is on you. And, as you've stated, you are not here to prove anything as you don't seem to believe that proof for anything exists.

 

And when you don't seem to believe in anything, and aren't willing to believe there is anything... Well, makes rational arguments in your directly difficult.

 

Never just assume that you completely understand water.

I do not recall anyone saying we understood water 100% down to infinity.

 

But the fact is that it does exist, and the fact is that it is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. While you can continue to look down on that infinitely to understand every teeny tiny thing that makes every process of it work, we know the basic construct of it.

 

We know because we've ripped water apart, and put it back together.

 

We used to think the world was flat. Look how quickly that changed.

Again, your own argument eats itself.

 

We now know the world to be orb shaped. It is fact, because we can sail around the world and not fall off. We know because we have satellites that orbit the earth.

 

The thought that the earth was flat was embraced by the ignorant, while the rest of the world had known the earth was orb shaped for thousands of years previously.

 

Is the earth orb a theory as well? Are we incapable of knowing that is is a roundish shape? Is it really a square all along and just tricking us?

 

While it can and often is productive to be devil's advocate, it is also just as often very counter intuitive.

 

See: Human requirement for breathing oxygen. You can be a devil's advocate against it, but you'd kill yourself trying to prove otherwise.

 

Again, the difference between known fact and opinion. While opinion is subjective, we know some things to be fact.

 

See: The fact that the world is round. Unless, however, you'd like to argue against that as well.

 

That's the point of this whole "There are no universal absolutes". You're a person that sees black and white amidst grey. I don't. For your perspective, and from your logic, you're right, I will concede that. From mine, I'm right. And that's how I see things. Sorry.

You just admitted that to you, you are correct.

 

Thus, again, you have made an absolute statement and your argument falls backward.

 

Sorry, but in a world of pure gray you cannot be right or wrong. By saying that, to you, you assume you are right... you are making a black and white statement, thus proving that you see a black and white in your spectrum like all of us.

 

Scientific fact is usually right until proven wrong, generally. It may take a long time of trial and error to reach that conclusion, but there are a few things that we have proven over time. Its nor really "sorta" right.

 

Like, it is stupid to say everyone can die of AIDS. Some people who have AIDS die of something else. Some people are immune. But, it applies to a group of people and we know that it has killed people. It would be incorrect to state as fact that AIDS kills humans, as the correct question would be "AIDS has been known to kill humans". You add the subjective experiences of many people into an objective picture of what the disease has been known to do to a good number of humans.

 

You -can- argue semantics, and are free too. Semantics are what help move the process along. But if you are just going to say that semantics themselves are human...

 

Well, all I can answer with is that your argument is wrong by the virtue that you think all human's attempted answer is wrong. Everyone is wrong, including you.

 

If you would care to elaborate, I would be obliged to read it. But, seeing as your argument is irrational to the point of disproving yourself and every other human, the burden of elaborating and/or proving your argument rests upon your shoulders.

 

But, I can assure you that you cannot do all of the above. If you can, please fly to my location, turn into a girl, and shoot my car with an energy beam. Then, I will follow you to the ends of the earth.

 

Whether it's right or not is irrelevant, because, in context with the logic of the concept, right and wrong is subjective, not absolute

While someone may be right to one person and be wrong to another, the fact is we all breathe oxygen. You need sustenance to live. If you brain is crushed by a car, then your body ceases to function.

 

Unless the car, your brain, the road, and you yourself do not in fact exist as we human are incapable of proving such a hypothesis, and you cannot die because the universe is entirely a subjective world in the eye of you, and thus we don't exist or...

 

See where I'm coming from? Its like trying to argue against someone who is claiming we are all hooked up to the Matrix, and are being used as batteries and if we just believe, our subjective minds can have us flying over rooftops as the thought that we cannot is pointless as it is a human thought keeping us on the ground.

 

Its a theory that can neither be proven, nor dis-proven. It falls because it, by its own definition, has no ground to stand upon.

 

Now, while rational and irrational may be human constructs, we've done a lot with a collective subjective civilization over the years. We've seemingly proven that electricity moves through metal. We've seemingly proven that we need to breath, and if we refuse to... we die. We've seemingly proven that if you get air to move across a smooth surface correctly, you can make a giant tube lift 200 people in their air and get them from point A to B.

 

So, unless this is really all the matrix, or we are all really just part of your imagination...

 

There is nothing else to do with your argument but say...

 

 

It doesn't so much give me something philosophical to think about as it just makes me look around in a stupor. And believe me, I get where you are coming from. For the longest time, I was a full supporter of full moral relativism. I'm not anymore, but I can wrap my head around your argument up until you get to the point where you say that science has seemingly never proven a thing.

 

You may not be saying that, but by stating that proof, right, wrong, etc are all incorrect attempts at objectivity... I again ask you to look around, as you've asked me to, and ask yourself where it all came from, why it is there, and who or what had to happen for it to be there. If you honestly don't believe any of it is there...

 

Then I don't know what to say.

 

given choice: have fun with topic, argue with each other...

And this is why I heavily distaste Philosophy. As much of the time is it one persons entirely subjective viewpoint upon the entirety of creation, it leaves little fun to be had outside of the philosopher.

 

Okay well evil people aside where they belong.

I'll be sure to direct this quote to the quote above it.

[Darth Avlectus]

There are some facts that are fact - ie true in all cases.

 

Water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fact.

 

Care to try and disprove that one?

 

_EW_

Nice.

 

When someone can tell me that the green they see is the green that the person next to them sees and prove it, then I'll be willing to concede that there are absolute facts.

I'm no eyeball expert, however, I do know there are receptors in the back of the eye. They fall either into

 

a)"Cones" for different frequencies of light wavelengths/optical energy, 3 groups Red Green Blue

b)"rods" for reception of light regardless of wavelength

 

I get where you are coming from implicitly for the record. However, if 2 people can look at green and agree that what they are looking at is in the same "green bandwidth" then that is proof enough I should think...

Example: Even if green to me happens to look like...I dunno... cat turd orange to my fellow man. My fellow man thinks its green as do I even though I may not know that he is actually seeing what to me is cat turd orange. For all I know, what is actually green appears to him as he knows black.

 

Not to confuse things, I'd point towards repeatable results in known conditions.

 

Everyone sees differently from you.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

 

I think you went from specific to general with the whole 'seeing'.

 

Theory: given that there are two of anything, the two alike things can never really be exactly the same. Simply because one is not the other.

 

So while, say, ball bearings can be, for all intents and purposes down to the most precise measurements we know, exactly the same... they are not: Consider that the next magnitude down in measurement, the differences could be astronomical.

 

I don't have any sophisticated tools to provide proof of this, hence it will always be theory until I can get the tools to prove it or disprove it. Low and behold I have basically just theorized I could be wrong about exacts, and I could be wrong about being wrong on exacts as well. It crumbles upon itself.