> Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol

Ha, yes :)

> As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here

So my objective is the "facts irrespective of opinion", but your objective is a subjectivity summed together from many points of view

I suggest my 'objectivity' agrees with what you quoted from the dictionary, but your objectivity (more importantly :o) agrees with the zeitgeist -- in that easily the majority of comments here take your view

-- a rejection of objectivity

I agree this universe is not objective, and I agree shared subjectives exist. So how to make that jump? -- from no fixed point from which to measure true/false -- to a world we can at least have a shared fixed point from which to measure

From an external stand point X varies around zero (or there is no zero). From an internal stand point, everyone can measure from X

So externally we can make no meaningful statement, but internally we can generate a whole microcosm. So shared subjectivity is the internal view?

So is the external an effective zero from a meaning standpoint. Then internal+0 = internal. What meaningfully separates the internal from the external?

Is the external meaningfully non zero. Then internal+external > internal. Good. But then we have external meaning. I think you are also saying shared_subjective > external. So internal > external

I realize you solve this. You say the universe contains something, but not meaning. From electricity, behold, I create light -- a shared subjectivity

If I join you -- I agree, the external world makes no moral sense. I step inside and look from your perspective -- a shared subjectivity. So now I see and make statements about morality based on X -- so to agree with you means to take the perspective that I have objectivity?

I think your answer is yes -- I want you to base your life on X

> I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details

So this X is a point from which you can measure decisions and the details of morality? What is the quantitative difference between that and the gods of DCT (thanks for the links) -- haven't you recreated god by a different name?

I suppose you might say: Yes, but my God is from electricity. Theirs is from the unknown

I think we can prove such a statement as partly right, and partly wrong

----

I think:

Either nothing is knowable as true or false, and we move on

Or, we know something is true, and then we have a foundation to build on

Maybe this is shared subjective. But we are not able to fully prove it. For instance mathematical proof is based on axioms. Axioms are unproven assumptions. So even the most basic things are unproven in anything beyond the subjective. We are like finite beings trying to reach outside the realm of finite observations. How can we we make categorical statements when we will never be able to fully check them?

Famously: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

But I would like to suggest a way, and the only way I can imagine

We need evidence that

1) Makes categorical statements

2) Makes them within our observation

3) Gives proof not derivable from observation

4) Does that as a unified package

Some kind of object from beyond our finite realm, stepping in, acting in a finite way (so we can understand it), and also acting in a non-finite way (otherwise ignore it); and doing this as a unified package, so we can connect the two together (finite and non-finite, inside and outside observation)

Notes:

Proof would have to be things we consider impossible -- outside of anything we have observed, and not baseable on anything we have observed

Categorical statements should be things we don't agree with, otherwise (If we already agree with them, then they're probably not based on evidence we don't already have)

I suppose we'd also need reason to trust. Aliens can step onto our television screens and make categorical statements, but they also tend to have the goal of blowing us up and lying -- also they tend to make much lower than categorical claims -- "I can tell you the answers of infinity", or "this is a universal truth" is too wild even for aliens

Such claims are necessarily stupendous, and we'd maybe want equivalently stupendous proof before getting off our backsides

---

So can I say...?

Nothing is knowably true or false, or, evidence exists

Which is tantamount to saying:

Nothing exists, or, evidence exists

I think for a nihilist, I would also add

If nothing exists, then at the very least, evidence also equivalently exists

-- Which I think is as far as anything can be proved

If this is as far as anything can be proved, then is this not effective proof that such evidence exists??

In a deterministic universe, I probably _cannot_ say: "Every action and statement you make is a decision between two options. You are saying one is better, one is worse. You are deciding truth and falsity. Ergo you agree such things exist"

But I probably _can_ say: "At the point all your decisions are not between a better and worse option, then truth and falsity are not relevant, and you at the least, do not disagree with anything I'm saying"

Please do correct me!!! It is now your turn to question my inconsistencies :)

Final point (if you are still with me, and not laughing your head off). I agree: Laughing is a good response

An objective truth -- a truth no matter what perspective necessarily makes a statement beyond observation: Infinity beside the finite is always the ratio 1:0. How can the effective 0 make any statement about the effective 1?

It cannot

The effective 1 is always going to be completely outside the expectations and sensibilities of the 0

I think your electricity giving a shared subjective has been placed in the 1