[goodbyesf]

> There are objective facts about the nature of reality

Such as?

> "but how do you actually know" argument of a college freshman

Epistemology has been studied by some of the greatest thinkers since the ancient greeks ( probably even before ) and not just college freshmen.

> no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them.

If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it?

> Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get.

What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1? Also do you realize that many mathematicians don't even accept the 'reality' of real numbers.

I think as you think more deeply about these topics, you will change your tune.

[lmm]

> If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it?

They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand.

> What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1?

In all sorts of places, not least counting things. Mathematics is about equivalences; the point of saying 2 + 2 = 4 isn't to make some funny marks on paper or pray to the platonic void, it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like".

[goodbyesf]

> They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand.

He was talking about objective things that people fail to to intuitively understand.

> In all sorts of places, not least counting things.

So where? Just one. Give me where 1 exists so I can check it out.

> Mathematics is about equivalences;

No. Mathematics is about theorem generation. Going from axioms to theorems via proofs. Though some go from theorems to find axioms.

> it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like".

What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc. What's objective about 2-like? Feels abstract.

Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand.

[lmm]

> So where? Just one. Give me where 1 exists so I can check it out.

Like I said, multiple objects objectively exist in nature.

> What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc.

That the theorems are true under those axioms is an objective fact.

> Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand.

As the great philosophers say, no U.

[SleekEagle]

> Such as?

I'm not specifying them, I'm referencing their existence. You can take them not to exist, but in that case good luck explaining the measurable consistency that every human on earth observes. In fact, if you truly believed this, there would be no point in even speaking leaving a comment because then you could not believe in the ability of language to communicate ideas or even in the existence of language itself.

> Epistemology has been studied by some of the greatest thinkers since the ancient greeks ( probably even before ) and not just college freshmen.

Yes but it is somehow seems to always be the college freshman that raise this question for fields that have contributed the most to humanity like mathematics and physics, all the while not feeling the need to question any number of academic fields built on an absolutely pathetic scientific process in comparison. It is simply because of their failure of intuition and understanding of mathematics and physics that they raise these questions - I'm not saying that these questions are not part of a worthwhile conversation in general.

> If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it?

I'm not understanding your argument here. The failure of a human mind to understand something does not mean that this thing is not objective. Nobody on Earth understood why lightning occurs for most of human history. This does not mean that the existence of lightning and the reasons for its occurrence are not objective qualities of nature.

> What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality?

The existence of concepts that map to reality in producing models that yield consistent, effective, and measurable results.

If there were no conscious beings, the Earth would continue its orbit around the sun and this order is what is captured by the human-invented language of mathematics. Saying that "mathematics" isn't objective may be true depending on how you define mathematics, but there is no denying that there are objective relationships which exist beyond human experience. If you deny this, you are left with cogito ergo sum which was my original argument.