[v3d4]

sometimes i dont post in these threads because there are so many things that come out of what i am reading, (and from what i have already read elsewhere) and already grappled with that it is too big to even start to comment because a. i dont have time/energy/motivation to lay out a whole argument for why i think a particular way and b. because i often find a lot of stuff i think applies to a particular discussion has already been worked out and written down a long time ago, and why put effort into reinventing the wheel over and over?

so this is one of those discussions, but i do want to lay down some thoughts on what i see so far about skepticism, objective reality and epistemology:

we can test for objective reality that is independent from our thoughts and perceptions and consciousness, but the skeptic's angle is that a logically consistent alternative explanation can always be made up to account for evidence of any objectivity.
i didnt listen to the whole recorded phone discussion at the beginning of the thread but i wonder what is the answer to this?

the problem with saying that reality is logic and logic is reality is that there is a recursive element not only to logical constructions that can be taken advantage of to come to crazy conclusions but also the issue of things which are logically and scientifically unknowable according to both logical and empirical methods. theres just some objective reality things that cant be found out by either method. (for example i might mention the two slit experiment in which an electron traveling down an unknown path get to where its going without existing in any objective time or place during its unknowable journey)

so these are the 2 problems of epistemology which is the study of the nature of knowing. epistemology has 2 parts: empiricism and rationalism.
empiricism says that we can know something by the senses, but the skeptic always has an answer to this for which there isnt any sensible answer : your senses are not reality, you senses can be fooled

rationalism on the other hand says that formal logical and math are the way to find out what is true by their consistency in always giving the same or right answer by mechanical means (here i am using mechanical as a kind of metaphor, except that the first computers really were made with mechanical gears and cogs to get the right answers to math problems independent of human thoughts or opinions).

the problem with rationalism is that you can say things that are internally and logically consistent, but dont make any sense or are impossible or otherwise dont conform to what we think of as objective reality.
Gödel showed that in certain internally consistent mathematical systems there are true statements that cant be proven in that system.
this is the problem of recursion in logical systems where you can follow sensible rules to say senseless things, because logic is not reality but a symbolic abstraction. a subset of the set of reaity you might say.
to say that objective truth cant be known seems bogus to me because if it is absolutely true for everybody, then it is an objective truth. sort of like "this statement is a lie" which is what made me think of Gödel