Vorkosigan

First, to claim one moral system is better than another requires some standard to "measure" the one against the other; this standard must give a "real" measurement of difference between the two and to give a value of one over the other.

Since you make this claim twice, it deserves some discussion. Such "transcendent" values as you refer to as the same as any other values -- relative. You're absolutely correct -- there are no values that are "better" than others in some transcendent sense. They are only "better" relative to some goal, purpose, or some other value. The fundamental difference between us is that you conceive of values in heirarchies with some "higher" than others, whereas I seem them as existing in networks with no place that can be called "higher."

Two people can have discussions about which values are better if they share some value, goal or trait to which they can both appeal. Since human beings have many values, traits, goals, and behaviors that are broadly common even when operating from radically different cultures, we can talk about "better" relative to those shared goals. This is especially true if an effort to communicate is made.

Michael: By contrast, the benighted followers of the Canaanite sky godling YHWH are permanently stuck with a set of rules appropriate for a gaggle of feuding tribal clans. That probably explains why they spend so much time killing each other and non-believers. Killing is one of the prime signals of absolutism; it is common in authority systems like Communism, Christianity, Facism, Islam, and so on, but rare among us tolerant relativists.
Michael

That is a kind of transcendent moral order that is presummed, and it is based on the assumption that the killing of such and such or killing over ideologies is bad.

First, show in the post above where I stated that killing is bad. I merely asserted that it is common in authoritarian systems like Christianity. I passed no judgement on it. In any case, the Christian deity nowhere says killing over an ideology is bad, so I don't know what transcedant moral authority you'd be appealing to in this case.

This is not decided by a majority vote, certainly not of the people involved neccesarily, but appeals to an "absolute" or "objective standard" of morality transcendent of culture to begin with.

I don't need to appeal to an absolute standard, just one that I share with most other human beings -- namely, that death sucks. If a universally shared value is the same as an "absolute," then I've appealed to an "absolute." However, I do not believe it is a proper definition of "absolute." The proper definition of "absolute" is in fact a value subject to negotiation.

XOC: Second, believing in one or more "Moral absolutes" doesn't mean that the "absolutes" are whatever "I" personally believe, or feel "I" or anyone else should enforce on others.

I don't believe you. First, Christians proselytize. In their perfect world, everyone has adopted Christianity. Second, you may not personally believe that absolutes should be enforced, but generally speaking, belief systems that emphasize absolutes result in lots of killing, suppression of dissenting points of view, control of thought, and other things most of us find objectionable. History teaches us this, regardless of the fact that you and I both share beliefs about tolerance.

It just means that there is a real truth behind words like "right or wrong" rather than it just being rhetoric; and ultimately this must be "God's Opinion" on the matter, as morality is only ever relevent in relation to personhood.

Thanks, but the Confucians managed to evolve a moral order as good as any without personal deities. So have many other peoples. In any case, help me out. What is god's opinion on:

-- incinerator siting
-- Jones Act subsidies for Airlines
-- infant industry protection
-- import substitution strategies
-- river basin management
-- nuclear waste disposal
-- the permissable rate of technological change
-- bank sales of stocks and mutual funds
-- derivatives
-- arms sales to Taiwan
-- drilling in the ANWR
-- bombing of civilian populations in wartime
-- the homeless problem

In fact, for nearly all important questions, especially for urgent questions of public policy, YHWH's opinion is either unknown or unclear. Or redundant, as in the NIV translation of the commandment: "You shall not murder." Thanks, god, for telling us murder was A Bad Thing. We didn't know.

What "real truth" lies behind words like "right" and "wrong?" There is no real truth. Either show it, or stow the rhetoric.

Michael

Adrian Selby

"My position is that "absolute truth" is a concept about the properties of our external reality. This concept exists in our minds but can never be attained in reality and, therefore, does not exist in our external reality. I think apparent contradictions occur because of the ability of our minds to imagine unreal or illogical circumstances."

The concept of absolute truth exists for us of course. I agree it can't exist in external reality, because I attach truth to statements about external reality. External reality is as it is. So a statement that describes that, or a part of it, correctly is objectively true. The issues for me surround how we know when we've found such a statement.

Adrian

phaedrus

Adrian

Dont know how i missed your last post to me ...anyhows

I'm sure they wouldn't, but if I found such a statement...Anyway, I am trying to give an example, poor as it is, of a statement that is difficult to refute. If I were a relativist I might wonder what the criteria are for deciding which statement about humans and water was the more correct if I had a competing statement that denied homo sapiens ceased functioning after a week or two without water.

Of these two statements, a relativist couldn't say which was more 'right' because that would mean having a set of standards, namely, the world, which arbitrates on statements made about it. Our senses deliver the information they do, and we build concepts on it. We are forced to concede the point about homo sapiens and water, or lead sinking in pure h20 rather than floating, because all our sense perceptions will consistently deliver a response that can be conceived in only one given way.

Why are we forced to concede the point? As i said "given these conditions, a particular biological being might cease to function or a certain metal will sink into liquid". We cant say it holds true all over the universe since we dont know whether it holds true everywhere A tribe which has been cut-off from the world for thousands of years, might have an entirely different theory/reasoning about everything which could be theistic in nautre. Stating that the Sun sets in a paritcular direction is entirely different from stating what is the sun and why it is setting and why it is setting in only one direction....etc

I'm not totally sure what truth means, that's a tricky subject, but while the process isn't a simple one such as a correspondence theory, nevertheless we have to either agree or disagree there is an objective world as it is. If we agree there is such a thing, then we have a standard by which to judge the statements we make about it, it forces certain ones and not the contradictory statements to those certain ones.

What is an objective world according to you? And why do we need to have universal/objective standards?

I agree that how we frame truth, how we use it, is a lot more malleable than rigid correspondence designation, concept x truly describes event x etc. But if the principle of there being an objective reality is agreed, then the view that there is no way to decide between competing statements about reality is false. We must concede that statements about reality that contradict each other can't both be right, so one is going to be right or both will be wrong,......snip...... To argue that the right one hasn't expressed an objective truth suggests to me that there is the additional proviso to stating objective truths that one must know they are objective truths. I'm sure we all sensibly take a step back and 'deem' things to be true, which keeps relativists happy. Or does it, because if someone deems the contradictory to be true, doesn't the relativist just shrug, and suggest both could be true, and suggest there is no way to arbitrate, given our subjective viewpoints?

So you think that things have to be in black or white? There are no shades of grey? You seem to be oversimplifying things here, its not just a competition between a particular statement with options of "yes" or "no", its about whole thought systems/culture/value systems. Whether a particular truth statement is correct or wrong is not important, what matters is people need to "accept it". Thats the whole issue, we can stand here and say with confidence that all evidence so far indicates that there is no god or paranormal phenomena, if it is so clear, why doesnt the whole world stop being religious? Its a question of value system, people will believe in things for entirely different reasons and view the world using different viewpoints/frameworks. Trying everyone to use the same viewing glass is a futile exercise since that particular framework will have to be an all encompassing one a la the god's eye view. Having said that, as i pointed earlier when i was paraphrasing Gadamer, its all about communication and building a shared knowledge base for smooth functioning of the society. We all share and privilege certain things, we cant escape that, the point is trying to understand that what we hold dear doesnt have to be dear to others.

I'm arguing for the principle that they are possible, not that we could know them now, I also wonder whether, if it is thought we could never know them, what standards we do have that allow relativists to dismiss certain competing claims about reality.

This i didnt get, what standards are you talking about and which claims have the relativists have dismissed?

JP

Adrian Selby

"Why are we forced to concede the point? As i said "given these conditions, a particular biological being might cease to function or a certain metal will sink into liquid". We cant say it holds true all over the universe since we dont know whether it holds true everywhere "

If its lead, and the gravity and atmosphere are as they are here, and its in water, or H20, are you suggesting that it is possible that the lead will float? Is your position, were it to agree that we cannot know that somewhere lead would float, merely skeptical. I'm suggesting by this statement that given the experiment, we might not prove objective truth, but we don't have a reason to dispute that the statements made about lead and water in that experiment aren't objectively true, we can only perhaps suspend judgement on the objective truth of the statement about lead sinking in water. I think it is a step beyond to argue that such a statement cannot be objectively true, because then we are looking for evidence to support that.

"A tribe which has been cut-off from the world for thousands of years, might have an entirely different theory/reasoning about everything which could be theistic in nautre. Stating that the Sun sets in a paritcular direction is entirely different from stating what is the sun and why it is setting and why it is setting in only one direction....etc"

It is different, agreed, but whatever the culturally disparate explanations and concepts are, does any culture, upon viewing the phenomenon of the sun setting, see the sun moving in the opposite way, and the day getting brighter? If not, I'm suggesting that we could think that the world is as it is, and it must arbitrate against certain statements made about it that attempt to describe it other than it is, when the meanings of those statements and their grammar is taken into account. In our culture I could not say, "the sun is rising," in another culture "God is pushing the sun back up the sky"

Either way, once concepts are agreed, the world then arbitrates that certain ones can have truth ascribed to them, but that in doing so, the contradictory statements to those truthful ones cannot, and so not every statement made about the world, and the sun setting, can have truth relative to the observers. This is the sense in which I meant 'force'.

"What is an objective world according to you? And why do we need to have universal/objective standards?"

Objective world isn't a statement I made, I should have put into quotes the phrase "objective 'world-as-it-is'" What is that, its whatever impacts upon our senses, our environment. I'm not saying we need universal standards, just that if the universe is something and not another thing, standards that apply correctly to the universe as one thing and not that other thing are going to be valid. Universal standards are there to be known, and my point has been that the difficulty lies in 'knowing' when one has appreciated a universal standard.

"So you think that things have to be in black or white? There are no shades of grey? You seem to be oversimplifying things here, its not just a competition between a particular statement with options of "yes" or "no", its about whole thought systems/culture/value systems. "

Of course I don't think things have to be 'black and white' and all that culture stuff is very important, I'm trying to go back to the floor as it were, strip away the other difficulties, start simple and work up if you will.
So I ask myself, is there a universe out there?
Yes.
If there is, then it cannot be other than itself.
If it cannot be other than itself, then it is something and not another thing.
If that's true, then it must be possible to describe some part of the something truly, if only a very basic part, such as lead in water, dragons in back gardens ( or the lack thereof). I'm searching to find out whether there is some way of showing that relativism is prematurely deriding objective truth claims by exploiting the lack of ability at showing an objective truth claim to be true now and for ever, because it doesn't dismiss the possibility that, even if unproved, the truth claim might be objectively true. Ultimately, if the universe is as it is, and it can be described at least in some tiny part, then it must be possible that this tiny part can be described truly. If so, then we have correctly described a part of the universe, and whether or not the words or concepts are different because of cultural differences, if we agree that the phenomenon we describe is as it is, and we (humans) find it self contradictory to affirm the opposite, aren't we some way to conceding that the unity of perception on the phenomenon counters the relativist argument that we aren't experienceing the same thing, but different things, i.e. reality can be itself and its contradictory at once, to different sets of individuals.

I'm not pretending the above is watertight, but it hopefully illuminates the seed of thinking I have regarding the possibility of objective truth, and why I think its worth labouring to find some way of showing that the relativist position is either solipsistic, or else condeded too easily because of the difficulties of proving objective truths.

Your example of why theists still believe what they do when there's no evidence is interesting, but not relevant, I'd be interested to know whether there are people that believe water deprivation will not kill someone if that someone is not allowed to drink water, and we observe what happens. And if these people that do believe it are brought before a person such as this, what they would say when the death comes. Could they blame a road accident when this person was not on a road but tucked away in a laboratory somewhere. I say this only because you could counter, "these people might blame spirits, not the lack of water", indeed they might, but could they say a car hurtling at him killed him? The point being there are levels of interpretation, but at some point, it becomes self contradictory to say that something happened when it so clearly didn't.

If you like, its the fact that no-one could point at a car and express their view that it caused the death of someone they watched clearly not being hit by a car that makes me think there is a way to discern between competing claims for truth, at least on a very basic level.

Adrian

phaedrus

Adrian

Regarding ur lead and water and objective truth paragraph...

Let me restate or rephrase what i have said earlier, we dont know certain empirical truths are objective and absolute and universal, since we dont know the "whole" universe. We can make statements like "given these conditions, earths' gravity, viscosity...etc, this has been observed to happen"

Now allow me to ask you few questions..

Do you feel that relativism means "everything goes"?

Do you think relativism talks about justification?

Do you think relativists will reject/contradict statements like "Homo Sapiens do not live for ever in the world as we see it?"

Let me state again as to what i think is relativism is all about -

1. There is no uniquely privileged thought system/value system
2. The "worth" of a particular thing or idea or event is dependent on the cultural/linguistic/educational ... grounding.

Do you object to this?

Now coming to your world-as-it-is...and evaluating the "truthness" of thoughts/statements/observations/ideas....How do you propose to get the whole pluralistic world to agree to a universal (applicable to our world) standards? Why will they agree to these standards? Who will set these standards? And those who set these standards..will they be totally objective and free of bias? If universal standards are there to be discovered and we dont the whole universe, then the relativists have a good potentail of calling it right?

I'm searching to find out whether there is some way of showing that relativism is prematurely deriding objective truth claims by exploiting the lack of ability at showing an objective truth claim to be true now and for ever, because it doesn't dismiss the possibility that, even if unproved, the truth claim might be objectively true.

I dont think they are prematurely deriding anything, based on our current knowledge base and given that knowledge is "provisional", they say you cant get out of your subjective web-of-beliefs to describe an "in-it-self" world waiting for us to discover it. Like gadamer said, Truth is not something simply to be discovered ("represented") but something to be made—through the exercise of communicative rationality. Truth is a practical concept

As i mentioned, there is a difference making statements about phenomenon and talking about thought systems as a whole. If we are to talk about practical terms, how do you intend to construct such a system of universal standards by which we can arbitrate statements about reality?

Your example of why theists still believe what they do when there's no evidence is interesting, but not relevant, I'd be interested to know whether there are people that believe water deprivation will not kill someone if that someone is not allowed to drink water, and we observe what happens.

Come on, this is exactly a relativistic position. Why dont u think that the theistic example is relevant while the issue of water deprivation is more important to this world? Which is more compelling? A single observation or a system?

The point being there are levels of interpretation, but at some point, it becomes self contradictory to say that something happened when it so clearly didn't.

Again single observations versus thought systems. What has happened is a biological being has ceased to function as other homo sapiens do in this world. Thats a fact, what lead to the fact or what happens after the fact are open for interpretations. Try building on the basic level, just like it is not practical to be sceptical about each and everything we see and learn and observe, it is not practical to to debate about basic facts and based on the fact deduce that the world is objective and is ruled by universal standards and everyone should follow those standards

JP

Adrian Selby

"we dont know certain empirical truths are objective and absolute and universal, since we dont know the "whole" universe. We can make statements like "given these conditions, earths' gravity, viscosity...etc, this has been observed to happen""

Does this mean these statements cannot be objectively true? And yes, we can make statements about specific things observed happening, my issues revolve around whether, given a set of specific events, can witnesses disagree on the nature of them. For example, if there was a man dying in a lab for lack of water, could anyone say that, after a week of this, he was killed in an aeroplane. If someone did, evidence would be called, and the merits of the argument weighed using sense perception and memory as the arbiters of the reality of the events. Now, unless sense perceptions broadly generate their own reality, we would argue that the evidence of the senses was provided by the universe as it is.

Relativism. You state that its about somebody not being able to get out of their web of beliefs to describe an in itself world. We can't get out from 'behind our camera'. This means that our web of beliefs creates the conditions for truth and falsity that we ascribe to experience. And if our web of beliefs is different to somebody else's then so is our truth.

Yet regardless of any number of webs of beliefs, I would argue they would be drawn to conclude that the cause of the man's death in the lab wasn't because of an aeroplane crash. So it would seem that our webs of beliefs refer to reality as it is sensed. This request of yours to get me to attempt to describe an experiment that unites the perceptions of everyone in the world is a bit flawed, as you might argue yourself, this still would not create an objective standard. My point is, webs of beliefs, however they differ, seem to have to conform to reality to some extent, or else we'd have arguments for the man dying in a lab as dying because of an aeroplane crash.

This must mean that one cannot have a web of beliefs about this man that includes the statement that this man died in an aeroplane crash. If you can't have this, then certain webs of beliefs are not as good as others. If certain beliefs are not as good as others, we must ask ourselves why, and it seems that the evidence of the senses precludes certain beliefs. One could dispute this, but in doing so one would be conceding it must be possible for someone to have a web of beliefs relating to an aeroplane death explanation, and that such a belief is as consistent as explanations that place the dying or dead man in a lab without water. After all, a relativist is searching for a way to arbitrate between webs of beliefs. If one cannot arbitrate then anything can be said.

So, if relativists, taking into account your question regarding the mortality of homo sapiens, would agree that, as we see it, all homo sapiens are mortal, what methods would they use to disprove notions that in fact homo sapiens aren't mortal. I'd suggest they arbitrate using the evidence of their senses. Perhaps I'm willing to go beyond the senses and suggest, well, OK, perhaps there is a world as it is that we experience imperfectly, but we can let it arbitrate insofar as our senses perceive it correctly. If we allow that the world is as it is, then its possible that a description of it is objectively true if the concepts used in the description map to the world perfectly.

I wonder whether we can ever know that they do, but I'm not ruling out the possibility that our descriptions can ever be objectively true.

"What has happened is a biological being has ceased to function as other homo sapiens do in this world. Thats a fact, what lead to the fact or what happens after the fact are open for interpretations."

What would you say to the interpretation that the being died in a plane crash when he was in a lab dying of thirst? Is that a good interpretation, is it as valid as other interpretations?

I know of course the more important stuff for debate lies in the bigger picture. A christian could say of the man dying of thirst that God hated him and that's why he did it, or whatever, and yes, we'd have competing interpretations of just what went on, and one would be invoking supernatural powers. Would we be able to arbitrate between a supernatural and a purely natural explanation for something? If not, then we can't criticise the supernatural explanation, if we can then we must be attempting to use whatever tools (logic, sense perception) to persuade the christian of the fallacy or redundancy of their position. But what's the point if you don't believe these tools are legitimate ways of deciding between webs of belief, or rather, if you have arbitrarily decided these tools are useful and someone else hasn't. Only if someone else chose not to accept such things as tools for the dissection of their position and maintained that the man died in an aeroplane, you might of course just stop dialogue there and from your perspective call the man some names. But you're also conceding he has as legitimate a description as you because you cannot criticise whatever axioms he has chosen that you do not share. If you concede this then aren't you only ever going to be talking to people who share your standards for arbitration, and in doing so, won't it then be fruitless to argue with those not sharing those standards. I guess to me the world doesn't feel like it depends on my standards of arbitration, it feels like it dictates them, and that they arise out of it. I guess I could be wrong.

I agree the issue then becomes, how do we persuade everyone in the world that these tools are legitimate such that everyone recognises them.

What interests me about this is that one cannot know they aren't in fact the legitimate tools, but also, in disputes about what 'is', I'm interested in how logic, the basic laws of identity, excluded middle etc. act with regard to the universe. I'm convinced there's a path upwards from defining that a thing can only be itself, to the establishment of a preferred means of testing truth claims, i.e. that it is the world that forces us to conceive of the logical axioms just described.

It would be the subject of a PhD for me, but I'll never do it as I have other interests more absorbing.

I acknowledge that the problems of choosing axioms for positions are in question, but I wonder whether the conceptual problems we have in finding a strong basis our webs of beliefs isn't undermining a more common sense idea we have that certain things just are and aren't the case, regardless of the cultural peculiarities of our beliefs. This isn't a construction of the sort you request a description of, I couldn't provide that myself, but does that make relativism right? Well, there are issues I've tried to outline that suggest no arbitration between views would be possible, especially given these issues regarding how to choose axioms, akin to what is discussed on the other thread.

You suggest its not practical to debate about basic facts, but I would suggest it is most valuable because they are axiomatic, any objective proof regarding the status of basic facts and their objectivity as facts allows the building of a system based on objective truth.

Adrian

edit, this Gadamer guy, I take it if he says stuff, it must be true

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]</p>

phaedrus

this Gadamer guy, I take it if he says stuff, it must be true

It will become true for "you" if you agree with his phrasing/thought or through communication we come to the consensus that his thought makes sense. But i believe academic philosophers do give him a hearing to this gadamer chap who carried the heideggarean torch till his death albeit in a modified form

Adrian Selby

just ribbing you a bit because you popped it in there and it looked like some form of justification for your argument, though I fully expect it was only to offer an alternative phrasing to previous points of your own

Never read Gadamer unfortunately. Much of the stuff I put down in this forum, particularly to do with relativism, as you no doubt can see, is thinking I've done directly on the subject. Beyond a book by Roger Trigg I can't recall any specific texts who's arguments I've adapted on this subject, though no doubt flavours of philosophers have marinaded my position.

Adrian

John Page

Adrian:

Do you consider that "truth" is something that resides within individual beings, or do you think that truth is something that is a property of our external reality?

If you agree the former, truth is subjective and determined upon the sense data and beliefs of the individual. If you agree the latter, please show a "phenomenal truth".

If you agree that truth residenes within the individual and is determined by sense data, (let's leave the belief part out for now) how can we possibly know the sense data is accurate?

This brings us back to objective "truth", contained within individual's minds, which only holds for the scope of the conditions tested.

This being the case, how can we ever be in position of stating an absolute truth? Therefore, all truths that we know are relative.

This is my line of thinking right now and I'd be interested to know what you see as the conflict with your previous (long) post. My instinct is that your definition of absolute truth is different than mine.

Adrian Selby

OK,

Quick example.

There is you, and there is someone else, ideally from a culture and upbringing as far from you in their thoughts, language etc. as possible, both human beings.

You're in a room and there is another room next to it, though there is no means of entry, i.e. there is a wall in between. Let's say its made of stone.

Now, both try to walk through to the other room.

Chances are, you won't be able to. The stone wall will stop passage.

If it is true that any human being, were they to stand in this room and try to walk to the next room failed, then we have a statement that would be a candidate for objective truth.

The point of the bit about the other person being from a widely different culture is included because there may be many things that this other person thinks, and possibly even perceives, but they will not pass through the wall. Not if they're a naked human being. There may therefore be competing descriptions as to what the room is, what the wall is etc. but the wall will not be traversed.

As observers to your attempts, or indeed my attempts to walk through this wall, we are given sensory evidence of things taking place that we have names for, and conceptualise about with regard to discussions like this. But within the parameters of the concepts and rules and language we construct, I maintain it would be impossible to assert both that the wall is traversable and the wall is not traversable, and that both statements may be true, whatever words are used to describe the room and the wall. If this is the case, our senses would appear to be forced to conclude something about reality, in particular, about us and stone walls. There do appear then, to be criteria, determined by sensory input that cannot conclude one thing and must conclude another, unless we've dropped an inordinate amount of mindbending drugs.

If truth is subjective, would you suggest its possible that everyone who ever could see this experiment would agree that the wall could not be traversed by walking through it? If so, we might have a universally accepted subjective truth. If not, can you conceive of conditions whereby somebody could claim truthfully that the wall can be traversed, and then actually prove it, as a naked human being using the power of two legs walking.

I wonder how different an objective truth is to a universally accepted subjective truth. I'm not saying they aren't different, I've not thought about it enough, by which I mean, I can see how they might be different, but haven't fully explored whether they're usefully different, outside of being purely skeptical.

You offer the possibility that I might believe the truth to be subjective and dependent upon both my senses and my beliefs. While I've been criticised for coming up with such simplistic experiments as this, I do wonder to what extent my belief system about the solidity of walls stops me from passing through the wall. I wonder whether in fact my belief system about walls is forced on me by my sensory experience of the real world. I think the latter of course. This makes me question what role different belief systems can play in attempting to assert contradictory conclusions about phenomena such as this one.

You then ask the important question, how can we know the sense data is accurate. There is no objective way to test this, as we're all using sense data. Sense data could therefore itself be flawed. It's conceivable that 3 billion people could attempt this experiment and witness it being done, were the logistics workable. I do not have much faith in the view that all 3 billion people, were they found to have sensory apparatus within predefined parameters, or come to think of it, with regard to the test itself, no sensory apparatus at all, would all get it wrong, or, with regard to the latter, pass through the wall. I wonder then how reasonable it becomes to suppose that doubt could still exist. That doubt would still exist is evident, good old Hume! But such doubt does not seem to be firm enough rock for relativism to find a grounding.

What the status is of absolute truths I don't know, are they to be applied to the universe only as a whole? Perhaps this little experiment shows a single, localised, universally acceptable subjective truth. But if truth can be ascribed to statements that correctly describe things, then I'm not sure that a statement only applying to a specific set of circumstances in the universe can't be objectively true for that specific set of circumstances.

Perhaps by relative you mean that the truth of walking through walls is relative to there being humans and stone walls on planet earth. That is a sense of the truth being relative, but I mean for it to be objectively true with reference to whether or not we can correctly describe what is happening in a part of the universe, namely, the room with the wall.

While none of this is watertight, it has forced me to consider the relativist view. Unless I'm mistaking relativism, I believe it holds out the possibility that there can be two contradictory statements about something, and that if they represent or are conceived within two different conceptual systems, with different approaches to defining what can be true, there can be no way to arbitrate between them. If this is the case, could a person from an entirely different culture, with different concepts etc. either walk through the wall, or describe the act, in their own terms, of walking through the wall while they give themselves a headache against it. Or is my belief system presuming they couldn't walk through it?

Adrian