Does objective, indisputable truth exist?

Same idea, different language. n+n=twice that n.

1 + 1 = 11

FIGHT ME FAGGETS

Anything is disputable, if you are willing to be incorrect simply to be contrarian. The sun is cold.

so is all math backed by proofs and axioms objective indisputable truth?

its my understanding that plato probably came to this conclusion, that math is objective and little else, which is why he abandoned the empirical world for a world only based in reason, the world of forms.

incidently, christ would later steal this conclusion, that we should abandon the material world for salvation in another world, although he bypassed platos deduction. he just stole the conclusion.

if the number system you are using is base 1 then you are correct

>incorrect

Our sun is much colder than some other stars out their. Then there are things like Quasars and quark-gluon plasma that make our boy look like a popsicle in comparison.

Math is pure logic, enumerated and self contained in context. It is as objective as possible because it is by nature proofable and repeatable. No math can be correct if it is not provable.

ITS ALL LANGUAGE, THERE ARE NO REAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS

WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID!?!?!

Objective indisputable truth can only exist if you take, at least some level of, reality for granted as being real.

Let me rephrase, the sun is cold relative to human living conditions.

""""""SOCIAL CONSTRUCT"""""""

you think you are really going to get anywhere if all you want to do is point out that shit is subjective? that language is a subjective social construct so why bother?

taking a shit in public is a subjective wrong, a """social construct""""

whats your point? that we shouldnt practice or argue things because they are subjective? that i should start taking a dump in the street?

I never said it was a social construct, i said it was philosophical games are language circle-jerks

> that language is a subjective social construct so why bother?
Never said this lol, language is objective, but the problem is language evolves and people forget the true meaning of words, so communication is deeply flawed, all truths are expressed by nature, everything "mysterious" is because of retarded semantic games

>taking a shit in public is a subjective wrong, a """social construct""""
If you take a shit in public in a civilized society, you are gonna get ostracized if not killed, thats not a social construct, is a biological imperative, debating on whether is right or wrong is the social construct

>whats your point?
That if language didn't dilute then you wouldn't argue cause everything would be clear

>that we shouldnt practice or argue things because they are subjective?
No, practice is okay, argue is wrong though, it always stems from lack of understanding, both persons are saying the same shit only that they have different languages to say so

For example, debating about "multiverses" is retarded because "universe" means "everything that there is", but "multiverse" implies there can be multiple everythings, there CAN'T be multiple everythings because of logics, but because people have forgotten what "universe" actually means and have changed it for an image of a starry night, then we discuss about "multiverses" and wonder about what "it means" when it literally means jack shit and all the questions that apply to a "universe" still apply to a "multiverse" cause they are the SAME FUCKING THING, JUST NAMED DIFFERENTLY.

I exist right now.

Can anyone dispute this?

a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM userinfo WHERE 't' = 't

are u still there?

I̵̵̦̪͛ͩ̓̓̅̃̐̀ ̘̣̎̇ͪ̂̅̚͠á̡͉͕͛̿m̴̛̪̲͍͚͉̬͍̤͒̏ ̧̖̠͉̫̮̪͓̻͛ͦ̋ͩ̔͌̉͞͡h͇̺̰̜̟̼̉̅̈ě̴̘̼͙̳͙͍̠̣̮̐̔r̛͎̤͖ͥ͒ͮ̉ͦ̕ȩ̞̮͓̀͂͋̚̕̕ͅ.̥͍͎̠̣̞̠̖̼͂

i think therefore i am, bitch!

Yeah you fucking idiot, anyone can dispute that.

>retarded semantic games
>SAME FUCKING THING, JUST NAMED DIFFERENTLY
I agree with you that semantic games are retarded but you seem to insist that we engage in one.

>people forget the true meaning of words, so communication is deeply flawed
you also seem to insist we argue the semantic of "semantic games," which you rather refer to as "forgotten flawed communication"

the subject of semantics and the subject of flawed communication really are more or less the same subject and if you want to split hairs here about how they are dramatically distinct, then youre not really going to make much progress in thought

you ever read this guy, or this essay? easy read:
paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

you remind me of what he has to say about aristotle and why his book "metaphysics" didnt go anywhere

Of course, but most of it is math and science based. 1+1=2, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, matter and energy are one and the same. Shit like that. Anything other than that is at least somewhat subjective.

>science is a social construct

RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

honestly, i was just memeing wittgeinstein, but i will read what you linked and come back for more

lol just realized by the way that your picture is of wittgenstein. i assume your pro-wittgenstein? the essay in the link also seems to rely on him.

ah, well then, well memed friend, you got me, i took the bait

youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk
referenced part starts at 3:47
his anger is priceless

In this context truth is usually something that corresponds accurately with reality and while some things might be true, its truth value is determined by the certainty of the statement, which is the issue with the truth self. While something might be true, we cannot be certain it is true, thus we cannot easily objectively say it's true most of the time, especially since we think/communicate in the realm of language, which is set of definitions that aren't necessarily set in stone and the actual meaning could be confused and hard to convey, so truth as how I see it usually just means something along the lines "statement that appears to be most likely correct".

The best case with true statement would be probably statements of personal intentions. "I did eat this meal, because I felt hungry" somehow feels like impossible to dispute statement within the context of the same person. You can try to claim that he is either lying or that he wasn't aware of his/her trued intentions that are hidden from their psyche, but it would still remain true for the person making the statement as long as they are honest.

If objective truth didn't exist, this very fact would be an objective truth. Thus, objective truth does exist.

To be honest, the whole subjective/objective dichotomy seems like a fallacy.

>They were in effect arguing about artifacts induced by sampling at too low a resolution.

This is one of the best ways of explaining it i have ever read

Haven't you ever heard of UPB, muh boi?

kek oh dear

Yes. Observe.

"There is no absolute objective truth."

For that statement to be true, absolutely, and objectively, absolute objective truth exists.

Categorically stating that there is no objective truth is self-refuting.

I'm a big paul graham guy. his website is pretty damn insightful and applicable