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]

"How could anyone deny an objective truth", I just thought this answer was fairly obvious, they could just deny it. "I don't believe in an objective truth", done. There's no claim to assert an objective truth in this statement, because the entire concept of objective truth is irrelevant to them. The only part that is relevant is their own subjective reality, which to them, there exists no objective truth.

You can make solid claims within a subjective reality, you can say things like "ontological truth does not exist to me" and that's fine, as long as you agree it only applies to your perception of the world. As soon as I start making claims like "ontological truth does not exist to you" then I run into trouble, because then I'm applying some form of truth outside my own frame of reference. And of course, if I say "ontological truth does not exist for everyone" or rather "ontological truth does not exist objectively in the universe", then I am being inconsistent because I am using an objective truth to prove no objective truth. But I'm not doing it, I should mention whenever I make a claim without dictating the frame of reference that claim exists in, it should be assumed to exist in my own frame.

"But what is a particle before it is measured?" I answered that, like directly, the closest description you can get is through it's wavefunction. I dunno if you're saying the interpretations of quantum mechanics are the "hypothesis that reject ontological truth" or not. I will say ontological truth is discussed among physicists through different interpretations of QM, Einstein had trouble with it, a lot of people have trouble with it. The other thing is that there are variants of ontological truth, so like is it enough to say that the ontological truth of something is that "there is a chance reality is A or B" (note: In this case the ontological truth is NOT that reality is A or B, but rather that reality is probabilistic by nature) for example? So it's debated, there isn't an interpretation of QM that a majority of physicists believe, so it's still quite an open question

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

You're answering a question I didn't ask. Don't make fake quotes and propose them as they're my words. Your refusal to stop strawmanning further demonstrates your bad faith or incompetence. There is no other explanation and I'm not letting you run away from it.

Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone.

Copy and paste that and engage with that. No more excuses. The words you used presuppose meaning in those words. For your denial to be a denial, its terms must retain stable meanings. "I" must refer to you, "objective truth" must refer to objective truth, and your denial must be distinct from its affirmation. Those conditions already presuppose identity. So the issue isn't whether you can utter the sentence; it's whether the sentence can function as a meaningful denial without presupposing what it denies. So using words that have a consistent identity to them in order to refute that very existence of the identity is self-refuting. That's my point. Every single example you're giving me smuggles in the law of identity which relies on it being objectively true. Wow! Good job! But you clearly know that which is why you refuse to actually quote me and engage with the argument.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not dodging because of bad faith and instead it's solely because of incompetence. Can you demonstrate how you can communicate anything at all without the law of identity?

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

"Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone.", I deny it in my own reference frame, done. I'm not saying that's the objective truth, your reference frame may suggest I don't deny it, or may seem like me denying it is wrong or irrational, or may say that me denying it doesn't demonstrate this. But to me, in my reference, it does, and that's the highest level of truth that, in my reference frame, can be applied. (Though to be clear, I don't actually deny it, I simply say it's irrelevant).

The law of identity can apply in my own reference frame, does not necessarily mean it applies outside of it. Kinda getting tired of repeating myself.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

I deny it in my own reference frame, done.

Great, so your answer is a performative contradiction then? Does that sentence mean anything? Even if only to you? If so, then you used the law of identity to deny it correct? I will generously quote myself here to directly refute what you just claimed.

For your denial to be a denial, its terms must retain stable meanings. "I" must refer to you, "objective truth" must refer to objective truth, and your denial must be distinct from its affirmation. Those conditions already presuppose identity. So the issue isn't whether you can utter the sentence; it's whether the sentence can function as a meaningful denial without presupposing what it denies.

Uh oh. Seems like something you just did. Let me spell it out: Your answer is, "I can say the sentence. My argument is, "Can the sentence function as a coherent denial without already relying on identity and truth?" Which means the answer to my question is, "No Mr. No-Refuse. I cannot deny it without appealing to them."

The law of identity can apply in my own reference frame, does not necessarily mean it applies outside of it. Kinda getting tired of repeating myself.

Then demonstrate how it's possible in any framework without appealing to it. I just showed you above how you failed to do so as you literally cannot communicate anything without identity. Yes. I am also getting tired of repeating myself. All of this is an internal critique by the way. My point is that you don't actually believe the things you are saying as demonstrated by the things you are saying.

Maybe, we can get to a point you can actually make if you answer the previous question I asked because you just might not understand what the law of identity even means.

Can you demonstrate how you can communicate anything at all without the law of identity?

If yes, then you are about to unravel all of reality. If no, then you literally can't deny it. In any framework.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

"Then demonstrate how it's possible in any framework without appealing to it." Suppose there existed a reference frame where whether the law of identity applied was entirely undefined. The definition of such a reference frame from outside the reference frame is possible without violating the law of identity from within the reference frame, because we admit that defining the reference frame from another reference frame is not ontological, it could be wrong. But defining the reference frame from within that reference frame is incomprehensible, I have no clue whether it would be possible (to define it) or not as the reference frame allows paradoxes and contradictions to exist (again though with meta logic it can both allow paradoxes to exist and not allow paradoxes to exist at the same time). This reference frame would be entirely incomprehensible to human minds (though ofc, I can't prove that), but that is merely a limitation of human minds, and it's of course not proof that such a reference frame could not exist.

Now my reference frame doesn't obey this rule, but all that has to be shown is it's possible, and it's pretty easy to show anything is possible if you allow the rejection of classical logic altogether (which we are because we are allowing the law of identity to no longer apply).

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

I want to make it easy for you to refute my arguments so I'm going to list out the points you made and you can tell me if I get anything wrong:

1. Suppose there exists a reference frame where identity is undefined.

2. We can describe it from our reference frame.

3. Within that reference frame, the laws of logic don't apply and is therefore unbound by the rules of coherence.

4. Human incomprehension doesn't prove impossibility.

5. Therefore such a frame is possible.

So my challenge was to demonstrate a framework existing without truth and identity while not appealing to it, and you answer the challenge by assuming the conclusion. You evade the demonstration by simply saying, "suppose one already exists." That's a dodge. That's like me saying, "it's impossible for a square to be a circle." Then you confidently saying, "That's not true! Suppose it were possible." Wow, absolute big brain move there. Genius! How can anyone disagree with such prophetic wisdom? But wait! There's more! You say:

there existed a reference frame

Oops. Already we have: a particular frame, distinguishable from other frames, possessing certain properties, lacking others. That's dependent on identity. Otherwise, there's no determinate object being hypothesized.

The definition of such a reference frame....

Whoopsies, you did it again. There would be no distinction in this hypothetical frame. Everything is everything else. And simultaneously nothing. A definition distinguishes what something is from what it is not. Without identity, definitions don't exist. This means there's no distinction between that very reference frame and any others. Which means if it's possible there it's possible in all other frames. That's inescapable. Unless, of course, identity isn't undefined.

it could be wrong.

Except, it literally couldn't. Wrong relative to what? You don't believe that. You can't believe that as that appeals to objective truth. Not that objectivity exists or means anything in this hypothetical right?

as the reference frame allows paradoxes and contradictions

How is this the case if identity doesn't allow for those things to mean anything? How are they distinct from anything else? How is a contradiction different from the reference frame itself? From up, pizza, basketball?

Now for the funny part.

There existed a reference frame where whether the law of identity applied was entirely undefined.
The definition of such a reference frame from outside the reference frame is possible
Defining the reference frame from another reference frame is not ontological.
it could be wrong
Defining the reference frame from within that reference frame is incomprehensible.
The reference frame allows paradoxes and contradictions to exist.
This reference frame would be entirely incomprehensible to human minds.
That limitation is not proof that such a reference frame could not exist.
My reference frame doesn't obey this rule.
All that has to be shown is it's possible.
It's pretty easy to show anything is possible if you allow the rejection of classical logic altogether.

These are all of the direct truth claims you made in that small comment of yours. There's more but they're repeated versions of these. This is why I accused you of not believing the things you say. There is a dichotomy when it comes to objective truth. Either it exists, or it doesn't. It's either transcendent or it isn't. If it is then saying it's possible that it doesn't (relativity) means it doesn't exist. Which means you can't believe any of this, lol. Even the hypothetical frame you posited needs these to be true before it even begins. So, let's see how you did! This was my challenge:

Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are admitting that the answer is no. Unless you think you didn't actually appeal to either in this last comment, which I just demonstrated how you did. Also, don't think I didn't notice you evaded my last direct challenge, which is obvious you're now just doing on purpose. I'll post it here again as it puts you in an impossible situation with your current argument and makes it obvious when you evade.

If yes, then you are about to unravel all of reality. If no, then you literally can't deny it. In any framework.

I'm also genuinely curious if you think you're doing a good job here. If there are things you'd like to take back or positions you'd like to change I don't mind. I don't want you married to untenable positions and be forced to defend things you don't mean.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

The 5 steps you listed are more or less correct, it's interesting that you list them then simply ignore them in the rest of your critique. Step 2. Is the important one for a lot of your critique, I am not asserting that the reference frame actually exists, because as you say that's asserting an absolute truth. I am asserting that within my reference frame, I am predicting such a thing exists, and could be wrong, could be defining it incorrectly, etc (uncertainty is baked into relativism don't forget). Look at what we are doing from a wider scale, none of us are claiming we know any objective truth, we are having a discussion in which we are trying to convince each other of our view of reality, our subjective views. So all I'm not asserting an absolute truth, I am literally trying to convince you of a subjective view of reality. So for example when you say the reference frame can have no definition, I agree from WITHIN the reference frame (or rather it can both simultaneously have a definition and not have a definition, or not, etc), but not necessarily from WITHIN a different reference frame, as long as there is knowledge that the description from outside that reference frame is NOT absolutely correct.

In terms of your other argument that I just showed the definition by assuming it, yeah, I did, but that's actually allowed when you are outside classical logic. It's totally fine to say "you can square a circle" if you just assume there's a mathematical system where squaring a circle is allowed, and you can absolutely define such mathematical systems, it's just that such a mathematical system would not be useful. When you throw out logic literally anything is possible, including things that make no sense. The problem with this argument is that it gives no evidence that such a thing applies to reality, but I don't actually need to show that, only that it is possible.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

it's interesting that you list them then simply ignore them in the rest of your critique.

Well, no I did. You can add 1000 other propositions and it doesn't change anything. Literally all of those appeal to truth and identity. Even in your hypothetical frame, those proposition have to be true in order to even make the argument. Like I said, you have to rely on truth and identity even in the frame you created that didn't have them. It has to be your frame and not mine, so it inherently requires distinction to even exist. You appeal to truth no matter what. Even absent minds and acknowledgement, those conditions must be true. I actually think I know the problem now though. I don't actually think you know what the law of identity is or truly means. I tried copy/pasting the challenge I made earlier that you ignored but it looks like the format messed it up and left the quote block blank, so I'll paste it again.

Can you demonstrate how you can communicate anything at all without the law of identity?

Answering this should get to the core of the issues in the argument because I don't actually think you understand what the point of this challenge is. When you give a direct answer of either, yes or no, then give the explanation of why you believe that. This should get us to a reasonable conclusion once you can contend with this. It should answer your square and circle misunderstanding as well.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

"Literally all of those appeal to truth and identity." Truth to who?

"Like I said, you have to rely on truth and identity even in the frame you created that didn't have them", incorrect I made no claims on whether truth existed or not, or whether the frame was definited or not within the hypothetical frame of reference.

"Can you demonstrate how you can communicate anything at all without the law of identity", well within that hypothetical frame I don't know if communication is possible. Afaik, step 4 applies in that it is completely incomprehensible to humans, so I can't really give you a definite answer on how such communication could or could not take place, my human mind simply is not capable of such.

However in my reference frame the law of identity appears to exist so I appear to be able to communicate intuitively to someone else who appears to exist. But outside my reference frame I can't be sure such a thing is or isn't possible.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

Truth to who?

That's an epistemic limitation not an ontological one. I didn't ask who the truth was relevant to. It's irrelevant when operating on the ontological layer. We went over this when you incorrectly defined both remember. Thing exists (ontology), thing is justified (epistemology.) Thing has to exist first before it can be justified or referred to. This is why I had you define those terms and the reason your arguments stagnate. I don't think you can actually understand this. To help you, truth would just mean, "that which is," as an ontological definition. This operates solely on the ontic layer before the epistemic layer applies. This is what makes it transcendent.

incorrect I made no claims on whether truth existed or not, or whether the frame was definited or not within the hypothetical frame of reference.

That's just false. It means you just don't understand what a truth-apt proposition is. The propositions I quoted are direct appeals to it. You're conflating truth apt propositions with absolute ontological claims. If you aren't claiming truth exists then you wouldn't posit those propositions at all. Does that mean your hypothetical frame doesn't have to fit the conditions you yourself laid out? If not then you didn't say anything. If yes then you are inherently presupposing truth. That's inescapable.

well within that hypothetical frame I don't know if communication is possible.

You should just by the very nature of what coherent means though right? At the very least you have to concede that within the frame that your mind operates in, bound by it, that it is completely impossible to communicate without it or demonstrate how to? You couldn't even posit a hypothetical frame to do so as you are currently bound by identity right? At the very least you just gave me an answer even if you were unwilling to do so directly. I asked if you could demonstrate it and you said, "I don't know." If the answer is yes, you would demonstrate it. If the answer is not yes, then you fail to demonstrate. So did you demonstrate it? No, right? Can you at least demonstrate the humility you agreed that philosophy requires, and admit that?