[z3c0]

I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment.

My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/

[themelodyfarm]

I agree that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. The interpretation is always biased by the interpreter. But truth comes before interpretation, not after. Truth exists independently of the observer's bias.

A bridge is either sound or unsound, engineering-wise. It is irrelevant whether any person judges the bridge to be sound or unsound--the soundness is tested by reality, and reality is mapped 1-to-1 to truth. Reality is truth.

Your math statements are true in the context of the ternary and quaternary systems. However, if you led the project to engineer and build the bridge under one of those systems, i feel confident that the bridge would fail. Because your ' true statements' would meet the reality of an engineering and implementation world that does not use those systems. Your argument that they are true would be completely irrelevant in the practical domain of modern construction. Your statements are not sound enough to build a bridge upon because the building project lives in reality instead of possibility.

One cannot argue for subjective truth because the nature of truth lies in its objectivity. Anyone who argues for subjective truth is in fact arguing for the non-existence of truth, which is foolishness.

[z3c0]

You're preaching to the choir, but only your favorite book, not the whole text. There is no nature of truth. Tell me what it is now, without using the word "truth", "objective", or "reality" - I can wait.

If you were to frame the statement as "One cannot argue for the subjective nature of truth, because by doing so they are positing the objectiveness of subjectivity", then I'm 100% with you. But to demonstrate that objectivity in a way that can escape the confines of your own mind? Good luck - it's a fool's errand. The most we can do is approximate reality, but that will never reveal the objective truth - just it's fuzzier-around-the-edges cousin "reasonable certainty". Enter the hard sciences.

Also, "quaternary" and "ternary" systems are no different than any other mathematical system. All the same rules apply. The only difference is when you cycle place values, and the expression of certain irrational values, which actually improves with quaternary and ternary over decimal, as they're both factors of 12 and can divide more easily than 10.