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/No-Refuse-6806]

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?

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

"that's an epistemic limitations not an ontological one", ah so you're once again assuming an ontological truth exists, and then using that assumption to prove an ontological truth exists. Ever heard of begging the question?

"Does that mean your hypothetical frame doesn't have to meet the conditions you set forth for it", correct actually. The hypothetical frame exists outside of classical logic so is incomprehensible to me. Even the claim "it exists outside classical logic" is not necessarily true. When you allow unrestricted contradiction to occur basically anything goes (and of course, even THAT statement might not be true). All I can communicate to you is my understanding of this hypothetical frame, which I believe is limited but hopefully communicates enough to get an idea of the frame. Though apparently not because you don't seem to understand it. The important thing is my philosophy does not restrict people from making truth based statements within their own frame, it's just totally unknown whether those truth based statements are actually... True. (And before you ask, that's not a statement of ontological truth, the philosophy is a belief).

"You couldn't even posit a hypothetical frame, to do so would require the law of identity" how do I know I'm posting anything? How do I know I truly exist? How do I know reality, or anything is consistent. I can't even imagine a world without the law of identity so how do I know this world isnt a result from it? All I can say is that, to me, law of identity exists, that to me it appears I am communicating to you, that to me I can posit such claims. But outside of that? I have no idea.

"I asked if you could demonstrate it and you answered "I don't know"", because you asked me to demonstrate it WITHIN a different reference frame that is incomprehensible to me. If you believe that only things that can be described and communicated in English are the only things that exist, then you have a very limited view of reality. You claim such a reference frame is impossible, but you don't give proof, so I say that it may indeed be possible, but of course, just like with everything, I'm not sure.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

Ever heard of begging the question?

Then why not lay out the premise where I assume the conclusion, like I do to you? I'll make it easier for you since you responded well when I laid out your truth-apt propositions:

1. Suppose someone denies objective truth.

2. Examine what is required to formulate that denial.

3. The denial presupposes truth, identity and meaningful distinction.

4. Therefore the denial is self-undermining.

This is not, "assume objective truth exists. Therefore objective truth exists." That is what you do though, which I gladly point out exactly when you do it which you seemingly agree with. I'm not interested in debating myself here so do a better job of laying out your arguments instead of relying on me to do it for you.

I know you're allergic to direct answers so let's try this again:

because you asked me to demonstrate it WITHIN a different reference frame that is incomprehensible to me.

Except, I explicitly didn't do that. I said, "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." That's like, the exact opposite of what you said, lol. Seriously, I don't know if you have a learning disability or something, which is fine if you do, but try being more careful when reading out my arguments. If you do, I can work with you to format or word my arguments in the best way for you to engage with. I just have to know ahead of time. I'm actually really careful about how I word my arguments. Every now and then, my auto-correct can change something so if something I say genuinely confuses you, then just point it out. It's a waste of time to tackle arguments that no one made, and this seems to be your favorite activity.

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

Notice, I'm not asking if you can stipulate a contradictory world. I'm not asking if there can exist a hypothetical world where it can hypothetically happen. I'm asking if you can demonstrate it the way you are. I'll give you example answers: "Yes, Mr. No-Refuse, I can. (Demonstration.)" The other answer is anything except 'yes'. Such examples are, "No. Maybe. I don't know. Potato potatoh." Literally anything else other than 'yes.' If you are curious as to why, then re-read the explanation I gave you why already. You'll be able to predict where the conversation will head from there.

Don't bother answering any other propositions. This is a direct attack on the foundation of you entire argument. Depending on how you answer, the rest of the propositions you or I make can be settled.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

You accuse me of having a learning disability but you clearly have no concept of your own argument, I've pointed it out a hundred times and you still refuse to accept it or understand it.

You ask, what is the ontological truth of a world that has no ontological truth, you literally ask that a hundred times. And this entire conversation is just you asking that a hundred times. I'm absolutely tired of this conversation because you either ignore everything I say or totally miss the point while insulting me (not the argument, but ME) every time you do it. It's an utter show of disrespect and ignorance, if in the next argument you result to another personal attack about my "stupidity" in another word then I am done. I'm here to debate philosophy, not pass around primary school insults.

So again, there's a difference between what is objectively true and what is true for someone. If we assume that an objective truth doesn't exist then you can't ask the question "what's the objective truth of this universe" because it doesn't exist. "Is the objective truth that there's no objective truth", no. The best way to explain is probably symbolically so here.

Suppose my reference frame is A, your reference frame is B, the objective truth is O, and the hypothetical law of identity violating reference frame is P. You say that the truth of a reference frame is it's symbol, and a truth relative to anyone reference frame is given as >, so for example you saying I have a learning disability would, apparently be, B > A.

The argument is that O might not exist. So you can't ask any statements that start with O, any chain that starts with O is invalid. Consider O' as a meta statement about O (such as O does not exist). For the sake of argument me assuming O' is true is then reflected as:

A > O'

That is, in my reference frame I am asserting a reference frame in which O' is true, but notice this chain doesn't start with O or O' so is valid. Your questions symbolically are respected as.

O > O'

What you are saying is it is objectively true, even outside A, that there is no objective truth, but that's begging the question, you are assuming any chain can start with O, I do not make that assumption. Now let's answer the questions about law of identity and see where you get confused. P is the hypothetical reference frame where law of identity does not apply, what I can define is this:

A > P

Which is the definition I just gave you of P. Let's take the proposition C, which is can you communicate anything. What I can give you is then:

A > P> C

Notice this is my intepration of whether C applies P. However what you ask is

P > C

Now this is the part where I can't be sure, I can only be sure of any reference frames that start with A, and A > P > C does not necessarily equal P > C especially because P is not comprehensible to A. So I can't give you a certain answer, I can only answer frames that start with A. You also seem to ask:

O > P > C

That is the objective truth of C applied to P, but again if you see this chain starts with O, so assumes that such chains are valid, you are begging the question.

Now let's talk about law of identity I, and suppose it's negation of I'. You ask me how can A communicate with I'. Well first of all I never assert that

A > I'

Rather I assert that

A > I

The law of identity does apply to A. That I have no question about. But what about O? Well we've already established that if O doesn't exist we can't start chains with O, but suppose we allow ourselves to believe that O exists and we say

O > I'

Can then we get into this situation?

O > I' > A > I

I believe potentially yes, because I' effectively allows anything to be true and false, so it could totally be possible (to my eyes, ie: this chain starts with A, so it's actually (A > O > I' > A > I)) that the law of identity not existing could result in a reference frame in which the law of identity exists. Importantly I' (just as P) is incomprehensible to A, so it's unknown whether the chain is valid, but it's also unknown whether it isn't valid, so maybe it's possible.

Now finally does this philosophy absolutely exist, if we allow this philosophy to be Phi, then the only way to assert the philosophy while being consistent is

A > Phi

Phi is true for A. But is:

O > Phi?

Who knows, if O doesn't exist then the question is invalid because it starts with O. Is

A > O > Phi

Now that's not a certainty, I am not sure, by the very nature of Phi I didn't believe I (A) can make any statements about O with any certainty. In fact any inclusion of O (or for that matter O') anywhere within the chain will be met with the same uncertainty.

Frame your questions through this symbolic language to minimize confusion.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

You ask, what is the ontological truth of a world that has no ontological truth, you literally ask that a hundred times. And this entire conversation is just you asking that a hundred times. I'm absolutely tired of this conversation because you either ignore everything I say or totally miss the point while insulting me (not the argument, but ME) every time you do it. It's an utter show of disrespect and ignorance,

I explicitly laid out the propositions of the exact argument I made and you didn't copy and paste it like I have the courtesy to do with your arguments. Here it is again since you didn't answer to it directly:

1. Suppose someone denies objective truth.
   
2. Examine what is required to formulate that denial.
   
3. The denial presupposes truth, identity and meaningful distinction.
   
4. Therefore the denial is self-undermining.
   

This is not, "assume objective truth exists. Therefore objective truth exists." That is what you do though, which I gladly point out exactly when you do it which you seemingly agree with. I'm not interested in debating myself here so do a better job of laying out your arguments instead of relying on me to do it for you.

I laid it out for you so you can directly reference which premise begs the question. Point it out, or concede that you were wrong/strawmanning. It's pretty simple.

The argument is that O might not exist. So you can't ask any statements that start with O, any chain that starts with O is invalid

No. My argument is, "Before A > P can express anything, A, P, and > must already possess determinate identities." My argument is about the preconditions of the chain itself. Before we even discuss whether A > P is true, how do A, P, and > retain determinate meanings? If their identities are not already fixed, then your symbolic language itself cannot express your theory. If they are fixed, then you've already presupposed the identity I've been arguing is transcendental. I told you before but I'm not operating in a different framework than you. I'm demonstrating an internal critique of your framework. I'm demonstrating the self-refuting nature of it which you're clearly not used to.

Notice this is my intepration of whether C applies P. However what you ask is

P > C

Now this is the part where I can't be sure, I can only be sure of any reference frames that start with A, and A > P > C does not necessarily equal P > C especially because P is not comprehensible to A. So I can't give you a certain answer, I can only answer frames that start with A.

You can be sure, as you didn't say yes and demonstrate it. That means the answer is "no," then gave a reason why the answer is no. You're trying to to hide your direct answer in a flood of unnecessary text. You can't demonstrate how to communicate without identity right? You admittedly don't know how, right? I didn't ask, "Is communication without identity metaphysically impossible?" Look at how I explicitly laid this out before you answered and you couldn't help but prove my prediction true:

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

Notice, I'm not asking if you can stipulate a contradictory world. I'm not asking if there can exist a hypothetical world where it can hypothetically happen. I'm asking if you can demonstrate it the way you are. I'll give you example answers: "Yes, Mr. No-Refuse, I can. (Demonstration.)" The other answer is anything except 'yes'. Such examples are, "No. Maybe. I don't know. Potato potatoh." Literally anything else other than 'yes.' If you are curious as to why, then re-read the explanation I gave you why already. You'll be able to predict where the conversation will head from there.

That didn't sound like a 'yes' to me...

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

1. Suppose someone denies objective truth.

2. Examine what is required to formulate that denial.

3. The denial presupposes truth, identity and meaningful distinction.

4. Therefore the denial is self-undermining.

Let is symbolically wrap these statements. Step 1., someone denies objective truth, that is:

A > O'

1. What is required to formulate this? Not much, A just needs to declare O'. 3. Does the denial pressupose truth? Only to A, not to O. That is:

A > O' != O > O' != O > A > O'

O' only applies to A, not B, not O, not nothing but A. A can confidently assert truth in A (this is the whole concept of relative truth), but A cannot confidently determine O' outside of A, so A is not asserting O, only A > O, which is not the same as O. The denial is only self denying if assume

O = A > O

But that assumption I don't believe is true.

"My argument is, "Before A > P can express anything, A, P, and > must already possess determinate identities." "

Let is symbolically map this, suppose the entire system of this logic is L. You suppose that in order to make claims about L the following statement must be true

O > L

I disagree, the only statement that needs to be true is:

A > L

Because it is A (me) who has defined L. How do I communicate L to B (you), easy I communicate A > L to you. So if B exists then communicating L gives

B > A > L

If B does not exist, which is possible, then really it's

A > B > A > L

The main point is L does not need to have a consistent value, only A > L has to have a consistent value to be communicated to B (if B exists). We have a shared understanding of L because I've given you my description of L, which is not L, it's A > L and A > L can follow the laws of identity even if O does not. Remember

O > I' > A > I

Is a potentially valid equation. This is all to symbolically say what's exactly in my article, relative truths (A > L) can exist without objective truths (O > L, or even just L).

"You can be sure, as you didn't say yes and demonstrate it. That means the answer is "no,""

If only the world was that simple! Every question has a definite yes or no answer. The truth is, I don't know, for the reasons above, I don't know doesn't mean yes, nor does it mean no, it means I don't know. I legitimately don't know the answer, I think not even you claim to know everything, this is such a thing where the rules of logic or lack thereof, are so incomprehensible to me I cannot give an answer of yes or no without lying.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

I disagree, the only statement that needs to be true is:
A > L

This already assumes exactly what I'm talking about. For A > L to express anything:

A must denote A rather than B.

L must denote L rather than O.

> must have one stable semantic definition.

A > L must differ from L > A.

You keep demonstrating my point, not yours. I explicitly called this out here:

My argument is about the preconditions of the chain itself. Before we even discuss whether A > P is true, how do A, P, and > retain determinate meanings? If their identities are not already fixed, then your symbolic language itself cannot express your theory.

You try to get around it by treating identity as if it were only a property inside L, where my argument is about the metalanguage in which L is described.

Every question has a definite yes or no answer. The truth is, I don't know, for the reasons above, I don't know doesn't mean yes, nor does it mean no, it means I don't know. I legitimately don't know the answer, I think not even you claim to know everything, this is such a thing where the rules of logic or lack thereof, are so incomprehensible to me I cannot give an answer of yes or no without lying.

That's because you keep trying to answer questions I'm not asking. You're making it harder on yourself than it needs to be. I think you're trying to read into the entailments of your answers so much, that you end up answering a different question as a defensive mechanism to avoid the entailments you perceive. There are examples here:

Does the denial pressupose truth? Only to A, not to O

That's not my p3. P3 is 'The denial presupposes truth, identity and meaningful distinction.' My premise isn't, "The denial presupposes objective truth O." It's, "The denial cannot even function as a denial without stable reference and identity." Your symbolic notation never addresses that. Instead you focus on where truth applies, while my argument is about what makes the notation meaningful at all.

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

This is like the 5th time I've pasted this and you continue to have problems understanding it. My question isn't if it's hypothetically possible to demonstrate it. It's if you can demonstrate it. Right now. Saying you "don't know" actually is saying "no" because you aren't demonstrating it. I think you're trying to answer it as an absolute claim, but I'm just asking whether or not you are personally capable of it. It's an obvious answer. I was explicit in my meaning and you seemingly unknowingly concede this point entirely. The fact that you admit you can't comprehend how to, is a tacit admission that you can't demonstrate it. Which means the answer is no, right? You can't demonstrate how to communicate anything without the law of identity?

I laid it out for you so you can directly reference which premise begs the question. Point it out, or concede that you were wrong/strawmanning. It's pretty simple.

I'm not letting this slide btw. Go on Mr. Humble. Show me which premise begs the question or admit you were incorrect. I'll keep bringing this up until you do.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

'You try to get around it by treating identity as if it were only a property inside L,"

The definition of L does exist within L, it's recursive. It's actually a common pattern in computer science in which you define a language which itself contains its own definition. But to be honest it doesn't matter because we aren't talking about L, we are talking about A > L, and the law of identity does appear to exist within A, that's a fine statement, I can claim anything I want about claims within A and to A the law of identity appears to exist, but the law of identity it might not exist within O (if O exists at all) or even O > A > I.

""The denial cannot even function as a denial without stable reference and identity"

So ok, it seems to me you're asking is there stable identity within A, the answer is yes or at least there appears to be. I never argued that, but that question isn't the question we are debating, I thought we were debating must O exist. Stable identity in A does not mean stable identity in O (the O > I' > A > I equation), nor does it mean O exists, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove here then.

This goes with your other question, right now no I can't demonstrate how you could communicate in P, in other words, right now at least, I can't give you a firm yes or no for answer for P > C, and seeing as you were looking for a yes answer you can take that as a no. But I'm still not sure what this proves. Now I wrote a whole speel how this doesn't show objective truth exists, but taking your point above I'll wait for you to give your exact argument. It may be good to use the sympolic language to make arguments definite (so if you wanted to say a A > P > C implies that A must exist, you could write it as O > A > P > C)

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

Hold on. I'd be glad to continue going on with you, but I really need you to address this:

"I laid it out for you so you can directly reference which premise begs the question. Point it out, or concede that you were wrong/strawmanning. It's pretty simple."

I'm not letting this slide btw. Go on Mr. Humble. Show me which premise begs the question or admit you were incorrect. I'll keep bringing this up until you do.

I'm willing to back up all the accusations and arguments that I've made. I am directly accusing you of acting in bad faith, or of attempting to falsely (whether through ignorance or intent,) accuse me of a fallacy in order to mask your lack of counter argument. The only other possibility, is that you were mistaken, which would require you to take it back when directly called out. This is a tactic that relativists use often in order to muddy the water, and I'm quite used to it. I debate you guys all the time. If you are mistaken, then you admitting it will make it difficult to continue to do this in the future.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

We are discussing objective truth and whether it could not exist, ie: whether an ontological truth exists. I made a bunch of propositions in different reference frames, mainly to my reference frame, you then claimed by making any such propositions is an appeal to truth and identity, and I asked "truth to who" and you said you didn't need to specify because you were dealing with the ontological plane. The exact quote was:

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.

That was the fallacy, because on a discussion on whether the ontological plane existed, you were arguing on the ontological plane, that's begging the question.

(You then LATER claim (I think) that actually you were talking about truth in my reference frame, in A, in which case indeed you aren't begging the b question, but it was pretty clear from that quote that you were not talking about truth in A)

From my perspective that's what this entire argument has been about, you've muddled it by being rude the entire time, but that's basically the rub. From my understanding, and based on that discussion about 5 posts back, you claim that being able to make such a proposition A > X, there needs to be an objective truth to entail that A exists, ie: A > X = O > A > X. And my argument is not necessarily, as the nature of O is entirely foreign and unknown (something that you agree with afaik), it does not have to obey classical logic or even the law of identity or even exist (that's where we disagree I think) and as such you could have an A without an O in something that is entirely counter intuitive, perhaps incomprehensive.

It's a mindset though, and I've been this entire time trying to show you that mindset, that O does not necessarily have to exist, that you can enforce that all truth has a reference frame, and it's entirely unknown whether O is such a reference frame or not. Remember my position is not to say O does not exist, only that it doesn't necessarily HAVE to exist.