-->
@zedvictor4
I am saying that objectivity requires facts. A human mind does not generate facts, as such; it observes and experiences them. Subjectivity requires the feelings, opinions, etc. of a mind.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.
Quantum physics is fundamentally unknowable for humans.
--> @PaulIf a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.Actually, it makes a vibration. That vibration is translated into sound by ears and a brain so, technically, it doesn't make a sound.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no human surveys the forest before or after, and if there is zero evidence that there was a tree or that it fell, does the "sound" technically "exist"?The answer is obviously no (based on the definition of exist).
Are you suggesting that for something to exist it must be verifiable by a human? I'm not aware of a definition of "exist" with that stipulation.
How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?I think I'll just stick to the definition of "exist" that does not require human verifiability. "To have actual being" is sufficient. Whether or not something can be demonstrated to exist is beside the point.
I wouldn't. How would you? How can be verifiability be verified?How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?
How can be verifiability be verified?
All I am saying is that existence is independent of human verifiability.