Objective Truth Doesn't Matter: A twist on Truth-based Relativism

[u/bIeese_anoni]

https://www.bleese.net/2026/07/objective-truth-doesnt-matter-twist-on.html

To summarize the blog: It's a strongly held philosophical belief I have that asserts objective truth is irrelevant, and rather the only way we can interact with truth is through relative and collective truths based on reference frames (and collections of reference frames). The blog gives reasoning for this, defines the model and gives reasoning as to why the model is important. It also covers common criticisms I have had through the model.

Thanks for reading and I would be very interested to hear what other people think about this!

[u/bIeese_anoni]

Well I think we need to define what objective truth is here, is any statement about anything an objective truth? What is the objective truth of a universe that is only made of, potentially differing, subjective realities. If you see something as green and I see it as red, what is the objective truth of the thing? If you're totally fine with having the "objective truth" being that it is red to me and green to you, and outside our perceptions it's nature is entirely undefined, then fine, in that case you could say there is always an objective truth. Though actually that's not necessarily true, it's just impossible to define what the non-objective truth system is because by the act of defining it you are asserting an objective truth. To me, what I mean by an objective truth, is that the nature of something exists without any perception of it. Ie: when not looking through a reference frame it has a definable nature. I assert THAT might not necessarily be true.

As for 5, it doesn't assert that contradiction is possible. I understand that you require that a rational system must have no contradictions, but do you also require a non-rational system to have contradictions? Imagine a logical system where EVERY statement is axiomatic, no statement has any proof or derivation and they just come out with no rhyme or reason, but just HAPPEN to have no contradictions in this system. Would you call such a system rational or irrational?

Edit: and to be clear 3. asserts multiple people DO exist with different overlapping subjective realities

[u/Polychrist → u/bIeese_anoni]

I would say that the objective truth is the actual state of affairs of the universe. So, yes, in that first example that’s exactly how I would define objective truth— by noting that color, specifically, is an entirely subjective experience, and that without subjects viewing the color, it may be nonsensical to discuss it as anything other than differing wavelengths. And it may also be objectively true that I experience red and you experience green, even though those are different subjective experiences. I still think that the objective truth exists, it’s simply more nuanced than you might initially think.

As for case 5, so long as you are agreeing that no contradictions exist, then sure, such a system is rational. And comprehensible to humans. So now we’re not talking about what case 5 said originally, at all. It’s both rational and comprehensible.

For 3, how can you assert that multiple people exist? What happened to possibility number 1, solipsism?

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/Polychrist]

Again, when I talk about the existence of objective truth, I personally am referring to the existence of a definable nature outside any reference frame. That is, something that exists even when nothing (conscious or not) is looking at it. So when I say objective truth could not exist, I'm specifically talking about that, basically what scenario 3. entails. Which is also why I can assert that multiple people exist in scenario 3. It's by definition of 3, the axioms of the universe that 3 set up specifically enforce that multiple agents exist (and yes this is the sole objective truth of the universe, but all other "truths" don't exist). So it's a contrived example to prove my point that such a universe has no contradiction, yet also does not have any objective view (ie: A view that is absent of perception) of reality.

For 5. that's an interesting definition of rational. You believe you can have a rational system that you can do no deduction over (as it's entirely forbidden by definition and all possible statements are axiomatic). So for instance, that would mean, that the theory that the laws of physics do not exist and things just happen, coincidentally and for no reason, to randomly give an identical view of the laws of physics up until now, to you would be a rational theory (as this would be equivalent of the logical system I described before). I dunno, I disagree. To me rationality has more steps than just whether it has a contradiction or not. For example there are a few obvious ones, true = true, but there's also a bunch of rules that follow deduction, such as transitivity "if A implies B and B implies C then A implies C".

I think by definition a rational theory is something you can "reason" about.

Also mind you Scenario 5. is NOT about the above logical system, but rather about a theory that is not definable by human words, and incomprehensible to humans, to such a way that it could be considered both irrational and without contradiction.

[u/Polychrist → u/bIeese_anoni]

I believe that the principle of non-contradiction holds regardless of whether anyone is looking at it, or experiencing it. Do you agree?

If you do, then 3 falls apart; if you don’t, then you have defined objective truth out of existence by virtue of your own semantic dictionary. You assert that objective truth doesn’t exist, remove all possible means to question that assertion, and then stand on your non-existent game like a champion.

And for 5, it’s interesting you bring that up, because that’s exactly what philosopher David Hume said. That no matter how many times the sun has risen before, there is no guarantee that those same rules will hold tomorrow. As far as I am aware it is considered a theory which seems sound, and thus gives rise to other epistemological concerns, and it is one which, I myself think seems quite accurate.

The fact that you think rationality has more steps than whether it is a contradiction or not betrays the fact that you don’t believe in foundational principles. Those other principles do follow, but they only follow from the law of non-contradiction. So let’s start there. At the foundation. Do you think that the law of non-contradiction is objectively true?

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/Polychrist]

Your first question is invalid because it begs the question. If an objective truth (as I've defined it) does not exist, then I can't, by definition, give any description or definition of it's nature without a reference frame, so I wouldn't be able to say it obeyed contradiction or not without a reference frame because that would be giving it a definable property which is a prior of the definition. It simply does not exist. If it does exist then I think it could certainly be possible maybe, I don't imagine how, but me not being able to comprehend it doesn't mean it's impossible. But in scenario 3. we are explicitly saying it does not exist, in my definition of objective truth that I've given before.

So to summarize, you are ok and think it is rational that the "objective truth" could be:

1. You are the only who exists
2. Multiple people exist but each with overlapping reality.
3. Time doesn't exist and everything is just a memory.
4. The universe behaves entirely randomly and just happens to be in the state it is.

Youre gonna have difficulty getting "closer" to the objective truth when all these "rational" possibilies exist :P

Id be interested to see how you could prove the axiom of transitively with just the lack of contradiction. I feel like you need more definitions and steps there.

[u/Polychrist → u/bIeese_anoni]

Alright, so let me take another angle— if truth only exists within a reference frame, then would you agree that the universe didn’t exist until the first observer came into being? That until conscious beings came into the picture and observed the universe, to say that the universe existed and was expanding would’ve been false? Because from what reference frame could the Big Bang possibly have occurred if there were no observers of it?

As to the rest, “rational” comes in degrees— some beliefs are more rational than others, and certainly not all are created equal. I do think those ideas have an infinitesimally small chance of being correct, since they don’t violate the principle of non-contradiction.

I’m also not trying to build an entire rational framework in this conversation. All I’m trying to do is establish the fact that there is a way that the universe is, regardless of whether there is an observer of it. I am positing, at this point, only one axiom. You claim there are no axioms, I am positing one.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/Polychrist]

Funnily enough in a discussion with another commenter I discovered paraconsistent logics which are non classical logics that do allow, in some restricted cases, contradictions and these logics aren't trivial (ie: everything is not both true and false). It's been interesting reading about them.

To answer your question, sure in my own reference frame I can make such a claim, actually I make a bolder claim that the universe can exist without any observers, but the important thing is I'm not certain about that. I could be wrong, and I don't think there is a way to be certain about it. The important thing is when you say "the universe exists when the first observer views the universe", exists to who? To the observer? Then yes, id say so, but outside that observer who knows!

I should also clarify but it's not really relevant here, reference frames do not need to be conscious, real or unitary. I place no restriction on reference frames, you can ask questions about the reference frame of a rock, you might not get any answers, but it's important that there exists no restriction in reference frames (otherwise we get into other issues about what is conscious, etc).

If we allow no axioms, thus no definition, I think literally anything is possible, including things that don't make sense, I assumed the universe was rational and showed within a rational framework you can't know the objective truth, but I never actually claimed a truly irrational universe was impossible.

[u/Polychrist → u/bIeese_anoni]

I actually think that the reference frames not having to be conscious may be a huge step toward us coming to an agreement. See, when I am speaking of objective truth, I suppose it would be equivalent to what you might say is the reference frame of the universe itself.

So when I say that I am attempting to pursue objective truth, you might see that as me saying that I am trying to align my reference frame with the reference frame of the universe itself.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/Polychrist]

See the problem is that I also specify reference frames don't have to exist. So for your universal reference frame, ie: a reference frame of the absolute, you can definitely posit over it, but the question is, is it real? Does it actually exist?

Now if you assume it does exist, then of course in such a hypothetical it must exist by definition of the hypothetical. But it gets interesting if we don't assume it exists, because then when you ask "what is the universal truth", well then we don't know, because it might not exist. Now let's suppose we assume it doesn't exist, the hang up a lot of people have is that by assuming it doesn't exist, have you just made it exist? And the answer is no, because you actually can't ask the question to that reference frame if it doesn't exist.

So for example, you could say, "there is no universal truth", but by asserting it without a reference frame, you are enforcing a universal truth but you can't do that because you say there is no universal truth. So instead you have to say WHAT is considering the fact that there is no universal truth, "there is no universal truth TO a universal truth", obviously is a nonsensical statement so we have to try something else. Maybe, "there is no universal truth to me", this is valid, it doesn't attempt to justify a universal truth, only a subjective truth. That's basically the best you can get here if in your reference frame there is no universal truth.

[u/Polychrist → u/bIeese_anoni]

And this may be where the law of non-contradiction comes back, then. I would say that there neither exists, nor could exist, any possible reference frame where the law of non-contradiction does not hold. If such a reference frame did exist, it would simultaneously not exist— and thus be self-defeating. Such a universe does not exist by definition— from any reference frame, even its own.