"My aim is to clarify and explore this question and to try, for certain domains of thought, to defend what I shall call a rationalist answer against what I shall call a subjectivist one." That's the problem with philosophers - they 'set up' a tightly defined question/aim (which to normal people looks quite random), define their terms (which one is forced to accept for the sake of the argument), and then explore it through tedious long-winded logical argument. If one disagrees with any aspect of the 'set-up', then one does not read on -- as was the case with me.
My answer: in an expanding universe there's no such thing as 'certainty' (which is a subjective experience). And 'truth' (or 'objective truth') is a word/concept invented to give comfort to those who can't handle their own subjective experience of uncertainty.
Thank you for the link. About the universe not expanding, my point entirely. First the universe wasn't expanding, then 'big bang' and it was, now maybe it isn't. Nothing is certain. These viewpoints are made with the arrogance of 'scientific certainty' (which has replaced the humility of 'scientific uncertainty') by men in white coats, playing the priesthood of interpretation. Perhaps something entirely different is happening beyond the limited human mind of 'expanding or contracting'.
Not even 2+2=4 is for certain (for example if you are working in base 3). Of course 2+2=11 (in base 3) and you can argue that it depicts the same thing but in a different nomenclature (two apples + two apples still equals four apples) but this is not very interesting when examining deeper philosophical questions about the nature of the universe.
I'm with Goethean science - the only true knowledge is subjective - which I suppose you could label an 'objective truth' if one believes in it.
"My aim is to clarify and explore this question and to try, for certain domains of thought, to defend what I shall call a rationalist answer against what I shall call a subjectivist one." That's the problem with philosophers - they 'set up' a tightly defined question/aim (which to normal people looks quite random), define their terms (which one is forced to accept for the sake of the argument), and then explore it through tedious long-winded logical argument. If one disagrees with any aspect of the 'set-up', then one does not read on -- as was the case with me.
My answer: in an expanding universe there's no such thing as 'certainty' (which is a subjective experience). And 'truth' (or 'objective truth') is a word/concept invented to give comfort to those who can't handle their own subjective experience of uncertainty.
2+2=4 seems like it will be true no matter how much the universe expands. IF it is expanding...
see https://www.psychedelic-library.org/FILES/The%20Big%20Bang%20didn't%20happen%20_%20Eric%20Lerner.pdf
Thank you for the link. About the universe not expanding, my point entirely. First the universe wasn't expanding, then 'big bang' and it was, now maybe it isn't. Nothing is certain. These viewpoints are made with the arrogance of 'scientific certainty' (which has replaced the humility of 'scientific uncertainty') by men in white coats, playing the priesthood of interpretation. Perhaps something entirely different is happening beyond the limited human mind of 'expanding or contracting'.
Not even 2+2=4 is for certain (for example if you are working in base 3). Of course 2+2=11 (in base 3) and you can argue that it depicts the same thing but in a different nomenclature (two apples + two apples still equals four apples) but this is not very interesting when examining deeper philosophical questions about the nature of the universe.
I'm with Goethean science - the only true knowledge is subjective - which I suppose you could label an 'objective truth' if one believes in it.