Based on many, many lifetimes of observation and testing, we have found certain things that seem to be objectively "true".
A is A. Cause and effect. Water is wet. Fire is hot.
But yes, this all could be a dream . . . Hitler could have been Jesus come back to take his revenge on the Jews . . . Bill Clinton could actually be a Time Lord . . . Hillary Clinton might be Mother Theresa's clone.
This is silly, dude.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I had a brief lull between projects, and thought I'd try and find an enjoyable, though-provoking conversation on a subject of substance. You have, unfortunately, wasted my time. My mistake, I suppose.
I had really hoped you were capable of going beyond "this could all just be a dream".
My bad. I'm out.
Now all you have to do is prove that "seems" is the same as "is". What was that about the definition of "is", Mr. President?
I had really hoped you were capable of going beyond "this could all just be a dream".
There's much more to it than that, my friend. But this thread will still be here if you wish to try your hand at understanding what I'm saying some other time...
Hmmmm.
A is A.
Godel suggests that we cannot prove this.
Cause and effect.
Quantum Mechanics has brought this into question in at least some instances. And of course, an effect need not have the same cause, and a cause need not have the same effect.
Water is wet.
Not when it's ice or steam.
Fire is hot.
Hot in relation to what?
The problem here is your insistence that you've found objective truth in these things, when in fact they are subjective to some degree.
This is, in a larger sense, the problem with objectivism in general. It makes large claims to objective truth, but relies on a variety of subjective definitions to support them.