[Vaskivo]

> Well, first of all, how do you know I posted it? What does it mean to post something? How does what I posted manifest itself in reality if you aren't there to interpret my post.

I feel like you are not questioning the message but the way and the "tools" used to convey it. ("what are words?" "what does it really mean when you say X?"). You want to start the discussion by questioning the (supposed) common middle ground of understanding that will be used for it. This way, I think, you kind of refused to try to give an answer to your parent.

I don't claim the anyone can "know truth totally and completely". But, conceptually I think there is. In a particular point of the universe at a particular time there was a specific particle there. Or wasn't. It couldn't be and not be. Subjectively it may seem one thing or the other. O even both. But it was either there or not.

And how do you deny the truism "The Universe IS"[0]? If you deny it you face a paradox because how can you call it false if false doesn't exist?

[0] By "Universe" I mean everything that exists, existed and will exist. Concrete and abstract.

[ThomPete]

"the universe is" is just another version of Ayn Rands "Existence exists" (A = A).

But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better and you still have to define what you mean with universe even your [0] will run into all sorts of problems (like what is time, what does it mean something exists etc)

It's it's own axiom and conclusion in the same sentence.

Gödel proved that mathematically and logically with his "incompleteness theorem" but you can also as I did above show it in different ways.

And you are right I am not questioning the message I am questioning the assumptions of the message. As I have said other places.

You obviously can't have a normal everyday discussion like that i.e. we normally speak with a lot of assumptions many of them completely unfounded and still manage to get productive results.

But philosophically this is a different discussion where you are forced to question the assumptions of your axioms.

[Vaskivo]

> But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better...

So what matters is not what something _is_ but what something _means_?

And I used that tautology because a tautology eliminates the "everything is subjective". (Unless everybody's opinion is the same. But that makes still a subjective opinion?)

[ThomPete]

Saying "The universe is" doesn't say what something Objectively is or what it means.

Tautologies are semantic and thus bound by the axiom of language itself. I.e. "universe" is an assumption, an axiom.

So no it doesn't really eliminate "everything is subjective" it fits perfectly into the postmodern critique of language itself.

[Vaskivo]

Ok. So, even if everybody says "the universe exists", that doesn't it exists because not everybody _mean_ the same thing by saying those words, correct?

I can see the above. And that the assumptions and problems in languages shape our thoughts and view of reality (the universe).

But, like I said before, instead of tackling what the sentence _means_ you tackle it's tools and execution (language and it's use). I find it like facing a a physics equation and starting to question "what is lightspeed 'c'?", "why is it in m/s?", "why is it base 10?".

[ThomPete]

Scientific inquiry isn't the same as scientific I think that's what you are struggling with.

In philosophy, these are _the_ questions you ask because you are trying to go the foundation.

But even in science "what is lightspeed" and why is in m/s ARE relevant questions not to do the science but to establish the tools for doing the science.

[Vaskivo]

Sure. But those tool are estabilished (given the constrains of language that we use to formulate them and communicate them).

I'm finding it hard to see how you adopt such a way of thinking in a macro level.

Example: Person A says to me X. It is impossible to me to assert anything about it because I cannot _know_ the intent, meaning and reasoning by A to get to X. And even if I could totally and completely "be" inside A's mind, there would be problems involving language (for structuring thought) and sensory perception.

1 - Does this mean that X is totally unqualifiable? (true/false, valid/invalid, etc)

2 - If 1 is true, how does that that not fill you with epistemological dread? Anything can be anything. And anything can be or not be. Everything can be reduced to nothing including our own consciousness/ego.

And I'd like you to answer this previous point:

>> But "the universe is" is just tautological I.e it doesn't help you understand the universe any better...

> So what matters is not what something _is_ but what something _means_?

(And since this is getting big, could you point me to some resources to learn more about postmodernism? And maybe continue our discussion via email?)

[ThomPete]

I meant scientific isnt the same as philosophical.