Mgrinder wrote:Do we know absolutely nothing about matter, or do we know a few things about matter, and probably have a lot to learn? Do we know absolutely nothing about energy, or do we know a bit, and probably have a lot to learn? DO we know absolutely nothing about space, or a bit? And so on.
So do we have a bit of objective knowledge, or "no objective truth whatsoever", as you say?
We have none whatsoever. Everything we say we "know" about matter are just other unknowns. If you don't believe me, just try defining these properties of matter: density, mass, velocity, size, color, texture, temperature.
They are all defined
relatively with each other. Let's try to define each, and I will italicize the attributes which can only be defined using other unknowns.
Density is the
space between
molecules or
atoms.
Mass is the strength of a
physical body's gravitational attraction to other
bodies, its
resistance to being accelerated by a
force.
Velocity is the rate of change of the
displacement, the difference between the final and initial position of an
object.
Size is the length, width, height, diameter, perimeter, area, or volume of any
object.
Color is visual perceptual property of various spectrums of
light as they interact with our
eyes.
Texture is the nature of a
surface as defined by the characteristics of
lay, surface, roughness, and
waviness.
Temperature is a measurement of the internal
vibrations of the
molecules of any given
substance.
Now let us consider all the italicized terms used in our definitions -
space, molecules, atoms, bodies, gravity, resistance, objects, light, surface, force, displacement, eyes, vibrations, lay, surface, roughness, waviness, substance. Until we have defined them, we really can't say that we've defined anything. And in defining
these terms we will once again use other terms which must be defined, or even
the same terms in a different context. For example, if we say, "Well, a
substance is anything composed of
matter", or "A
substance is
something,
anything that actually exists", we have again used terms that either need defining, or else are defined by
each other.
Everything we "know" is defined by
other things we allegedly "know", but when we "step back" and look at the entire inventory of our terms, we see that we really don't know what any of them actually are,
in and of themselves. And true "knowing" is knowing what something is
in and of itself. But this vicious circle of saying that "x=y and y=x" normally satisfies us. Using this method, we can
pretend that we know something about "x" or "y", and very convincingly at that, until we realize that we do not know
hidden quantities, i.e. we do not know what the
value of either is. Knowing what "x" and "y" are
in and of themselves would enable us to say something like "x=5, therefore y=5", or "x and y are 5". But once we realize that we do not know this we see this "mental gymnastics" for what it really is - a very clever and sophisticated way to fool ourselves into thinking that we really know something objectively, i.e. as it is outside of the boundaries of our subjective way of perceiving and cognizing it.....