Come on that wasn't an elaboration on anything. When you say "stamina" what should be there is "ability".
You said earlier that me and Bronto could barely get to the 1st step of comprehending Cog, you've had this all figured out from a 3rd perspective (allowing you to feel superior to everyone involved) so make some sense. Nothing you or Cog has written has gone beyond mistaking the scientific method of investigation for metaphysics, it never got past post #52. You're also awfully good at selectively answering posts.
In your latest post you critizise art and string theory with the same arguments both me and Bronto have used on the same subjects in other threads on the forum, actually not sure if any one of us has commented on string theory, but the same applies to modal realism and that's been commented on anyway. How this connects to the topic at hand is not clear, you simplay state that it does, but not
how it does You never seem to get to the gist of your arguments. You just keep making examples and disgressions. Bronto has made several points which you've ignored, either by simply not replying or by using the classical Cognisant manouvre of saying "You are *insert sollipsist/religious/whatever* therefore nothing I can say to you matters, I shall of course keep on replying but not to this particular part of your post however pivotal it may be". At some point you need to get down and dirty and explain why subject and object are not in a mutually dependent relationship by logical necessity.
You still don't need a subject for an object to be real. If you agree that the universe is real and consistent, it inherently follows that there exists an actual objective universe - because it's consistent. Meaning that even allowing for the observer effect where things can change upon observation - they still don't change in such a way that breaks the consistency of the laws which govern the real universe.
Those objects can still exist whether or not there's a subject to perceive them.
Yeah they
can exist, but without observations we don't know if they do. The objective reality you speak is just speculation. What we know for sure we know based upon observations and deductions, ergo stuff which relies on a subject. Ergo all actual knowledge is not objective.
You still don't get the point of the "if a tree falls in the woods..."-scenario. Of course the tree bloody falls regardless of whether anyone is there to observe it or not, the point is we can't say that it does unless we are aware of it. To say that a tree falls in the woods when we have no knowledge of such a thing is nonsense akin to saying that there is a god in the sky or a teapot circling jupiter. Objective reality is a mental construct into which we fit our knowledge. It is not something that is there already, to us it exists only insofar as we are subjectively aware of the universe. This does not mean that the universe depends on us for its existence, but that our only link to the universe is through us. And
the laws of the universe are predictable insofar as we understand them. For us to have an objective understanding of the universe we would need to understand it perfectly in its totality, which is not possible when we are a part of said universe (russels paradox).
So what then is the yield of assuming something we may never know? Something which
is in the realm of metaphysics since it comments on the nature of what existence in itself pertains by saying existence is
objective. You have failed to explain how this is necessary to learn anything of reality.
If you don't think these objections are valid chances are you are using an everyday loose definition of objective in a philosophical debate.
