"Objective reality"

Quote:

If he said that he was wrong

I challenge you to define "wrong" without begging the question of "objective reality".

No. I am saying that "right" and "wrong" have no place in a discussion of "reality".

Yes... in the same way that, say, discussions of a "male-female" dichotomy have no place at the level of discussion of "the essence of life".

So the statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is- right? I suppose then that your statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is not saying something about reality. Is that right?

I am not interested in playing your word games.
You need to understand the background for the development of non-binary logic, i.e. the failure of static set theory applied to dynamic systems , in order to talk sensibly (out of the box) about the concept of "reality". You have failed to recognize that your own argument predicated on "the macro-level" has underscored its parochial nature. If instead, you were to investigate why ""macro and micro levels" might constitute a significant difference, you may be on your way to actually "doing philosophy".

Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you suggesting we are discussing "value judgements" ? My context for this argument is about coherence of abstract mathematical structures which underline "truth values". A consideration of the dynamics might suggest for example that "action" might be bi-directional as in "action" being the existential complement of "reaction" (neither being a priori). A familiar example of this might be consideration of the "observer" interacting with/ determining "the observed" in quantum mechanics. It is such cases which lead to reflection on micro versus macro levels of "reality".

Note also that in discussing "survival", some authors (Maturana et al) define "life" as a a dynamic system which adapts to perturbations to its structure. There is no "right" or "wrong" for the organism per se, only "alive" or "dead". It is only in the realm of third party verbal observation that "right" and "wrong" (successful vs unsuccessful adaptations) exist, but such "observation" is divorced from "survival activities" per se, since the actual organism being observed has "no choice".

objective reality is what goes on when we don't exist

Quote:

objective reality is what goes on when we don't exist

Quote:

What do you have to offer to give that notion any more substance than the concept of vengeful god?

eh.. ( I'm Canadian you know )

Quote:

There is no sound logical explanation that validates the claim that there is such a thing as objective reality.

because they don't use reason

logic is the consequence of reason and is the conclusion of that reasoning

You hiding behind your nationality on this is just discriminating towards canadians...

Quote:

You said that objective reality is beyond mathematics.

it is

Quote:

That it is what happens when we don't exist.

it is , we are of the objective reality

Quote:

But there just isn't any foundation upon which you can base those claims. "Objective reality" is an unnecesary concept, ineffable by definition, and as justifiable in terms of what it is possible to know with certainty as any concept of god.

the objective reality is the reality which needs not our observation of

the Universe and all that there is in it

the foundation is based on the fact that life cannot become anywhere , such as the moon , therefore our planet which is condusive to life had to be here before any form of life could become

and that in order for life to manifest into forms, life draws from the Earth materials ( minerals for example ) in which to become manifest

the foundation is based on the fact that life cannot become anywhere , such as the moon , therefore our planet which is condusive to life had to be here before any form of life could become