You have absolutely no basis to say that it "by no means affects the objective existence of a thing." This is your fundamental error. How can you possibly know that without making a (as I noted before) "totally unnecessary and wholly unfalsifiable assumption?" How can you possibility know what the objective existence of something is without being aware of it?
Strictly speaking, I agree with that. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (and all that shit about falsifiability). Thereby it is a moot point really, since the same principle is applicable to your reasoning as well. Ancient people knew nothing of cancer, but there is overwhelming evidence that it existed back then, so
something might exist today that we know nothing of. Actually, that's what I was trying to convey right from the start. That is, in the absence of strong evidence we can only believe (until new evidence is found, of course), or just refrain from making definitive conclusions...
And yes, I am more inclined to think that the subjective is not connected with the objective in the way you are trying to push it
Correct, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but in this case that only applies directly to
Empiricism, which necessarily omits comprehensive explanation and thereby not only leaves unfalsifiable assumptions on the table, but also leaves a necessary cause of which it can never model. In a self-deterministic model where objective content is fundamentally inseparable from the mental constructs that model them, the necessary cause
is modeled, and in such a way that it also explains the cause of the model itself (i.e. through theoretical self-reference).
A self-deterministic model is not in any way threatened by such unfalsifiable assumptions in the same way that an Empirical worldview is because it precludes any instance in which such unverifiable content is actually relevant to Reality. Accordingly, these unfalsifable assumptions are
a priori unreal. This distinction is especially highlighted by the fact that Empirical models cannot account for themselves (because they are abstract and therefore beyond the scope of Empiricism altogether), and can't even account for their own assumptions (e.g. that we live in a Positivistic Universe, a purely philosophical assumption that also falls outside of their scope).
My claims are falsifiable, as I have already explained how there is a theoretical way to falsify them. Again, what you will find is that any attempt to falsify them will only reinforce the general idea in the same way that any attempt to falsify the existence of absolute truth only serves to reinforce it, since any claim must necessarily assume its own absolute, objective weight in order to be objectively relevant to the argument.
...
Objectively relevant. These are the types of relationships you need to become aware of. What is objective is only so
in relation to something else. For example, the syntax of a system is objective
relative to its contents, while its contents are
only relative to its syntax and not in any way absolute to it. However, the same, objective syntax of the original system is merely relative to the syntax of an even greater system containing it. Objective does NOT mean something like "it is what it is all by itself." Objectivity is a relation. You avoid infinite regression by modeling objectivity self-relationally (in the same way that sound logic is logical because sound logic says so).
And of course you're inclined to think subjectivity and objectivity aren't connected in the way I propose because the notion apparently runs contrary to what you've been assuming (i.e. your inclination) this entire time.
http://ctmu.org/ [See Q&A]
Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns, theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.
In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about...
...Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality...
...As noted by Berkeley, we can know reality only through perception. So our theories of reality necessarily have a perceptual or observational basis. But as noted by Kant, the process of observation has substantial internal complexity; it is a relationship of subject and object with sensory (phenomenal) and cognitive (categorical) components. So reality is at once monic, because uniformly perceptual, and dualistic, because perception has two complementary aspects...
...Now consider physics. Because physics is governed by the scientific method, it deals exclusively with phenomena. Thus, it effectively diverts attention away from the cognitive, categorical aspect of perceptual reality, without which neither phenomena nor scientific theories could exist. Because physics is irreducibly dualistic and takes the fundamental separation of mind and matter as axiomatic, it cannot provide us with a complete picture of reality. It can tell us only what lies outside the subjective observer, not within.
By definition, reality must contain all that it needs to exist; equivalently, anything on which the existence of reality depends is real by definition (if it were not, then reality would be based on nonreality and would itself be unreal, a semantic contradiction). So attempts to explain reality entirely in terms of physics are paradoxical; reality contains not only the physical, but the abstract machinery of perception and cognition through which "the physical" is perceived and explained. Where this abstract machinery is what we mean by "the supraphysical", reality has physical and supraphysical aspects. Physical and supraphysical reality are respectively "concrete" and "abstract", i.e. material and mental in nature.
The question is, do we continue to try to objectivize the supraphysical component of reality as do the theories of physics, strings and membranes, thus regenerating the paradox? Or do we...resolve the paradox, admitting that the supraphysical aspect of reality is "mental" in a generalized sense and describing all components of reality in terms of SCSPL syntactic operators with subjective and objective aspects?
