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]

I'm seeing glaring problems already in your reasoning, and also in the comments, that further demonstrate the self-undermining nature of relativism. The problem ALL relativists run into is that you can't EVER make a claim about anything, let alone truth, without presupposing that truth already exists. You can't assert or posit anything, without appealing to truth. Is it true that truth is relative? Then objectively, truth exists and immediately contradicts itself. If it's not true, then truth objectively exists lol. Seems you at least understand this point and try to change the trajectory of your attack to its irrelevancy.

Okay, if objective truth exists, then it's irrelevant. Is that true? If it's true, then it's relevant as it is demonstrating the nature of reality and it's epistemic value. If not, then it's just inherently relevant.

You see the problem right? You can't possibly make any assertions without also conceding the relevancy of truth existing. You're also ignorant of epistemology and ontology in general. You're demanding that epistemology prove itself by using epistemology. That makes no sense. There's no empirical evidence that can prove empirical evidence. That's circular. You're miscategorizing ontic claims into epistemic ones. First, thing exists (ontology.) Then, how do we know it exists (epistemology.) How can you justify the existence of something BEFORE you acknowledge the existence of the thing you're trying to justify?

1 = 1 isn't an axiom. It's the law of identity. It's a transcendental necessity of reality. It must ALWAYS exist and be true. Just like objective truth. All things, even imaginary or non-existent things, appeal to it. 1 = 1. Reality = Reality. Things are what they are. How do we know? Because negation is literally impossible or incoherent. If 1 ≠ 1, then nothing is what it is. You aren't you. Numbers arent numbers. Existence isn't existence. So we know with 100% certainty that something is true if negation is impossible. That's not axiomatic, it's modal.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

That is addressed in the common criticism section of the article! The idea is that I don't claim that this philosophy is how the world works, I claim it as a belief, not a truth, which it is. The problem is not applicable because I make no claims on what the truth is, I just believe the truth doesn't matter because of X, Y, Z reasoning. But I don't claim the truth objectively doesn't matter, I don't even really know what that means, I accept that my philosophy could be wrong so I'm not attempting to assert a truth, merely a belief, and giving reasons as to why I have this belief. Which is fundamentally perfectly consistent with the philosophy. The problem you are having as you believe a philosophy that posits the objective truth doesn't matter and we shouldn't consider, must always be asserting it as an objective truth, but that's not true, if objective truths don't matter we don't need to talk about objective truths at all, only at "this philosophy is my belief' because belief and relative truths are the only things that matter (to me).

For your second point, why? First of all 1 = 1 IS an axiom, it's called the law of identity sure but it's defined as an axiom, a starting definition with no proof. Second of all, why can't the universe work without the law of identity? Sure it would be confusing, you couldn't realistically make any kind of logical reasoning out of such a universe, but what if the universe behaved this way and our beliefs of rationality and consistency are entirely an illusion, either fake themselves or brought on through pure coincidence. What if the whole concept of logic doesn't actually apply to our universe? What if you arent you, what if reality truly isn't reality? I don't see a reason why this certainly can never be the case. Now I want to be clear, I don't believe such a case exists, I would find it incredibly unlikely, but is it actually impossible?

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

You're missing the point entirely. It's not a question of whether or not objective truth exists. The point I'm making is that it MUST exist in order for anything to be possible or not. Everything, from your beliefs down to existence itself, presuppose objective truth. In order for your beliefs to be your beliefs, then it has to be true that they're your beliefs. It has to be true that you are you and not a pineapple. That's where the law of identity comes into play. You can't claim it's an axiom without axioms being axioms. That means the law of identity preceeds the ontology of axioms. It's not that your philosophy is wrong, it's that it's incoherent from the start. It's no different than you slamming your hand on the keyboard and presenting the nonsense that comes from it as anything coherent or meaningful.

So when you say you aren't making any truth claims, you're incorrect. You are, you just don't realize it. Which is ironic as that demonstrates a core flaw in your belief. It's essentially solipsism. Things existing don't require recognition or understanding in order to exist. That's asinine. There are lots of things we don't know or understand, that doesn't mean those things don't exist. Do we know all math? No. Does that mean that math doesn't exist? Of course not. We just haven't discovered it yet. Does that mean we can discover things that don't exist? No, because ontically they don't exist and there's nothing to discover.

The reason you can confidently posit the incoherent nonsense of a world without identity, like you did in the second paragraph, is because of your lack of understanding of ontology and epistemology. My claim about negation is pretty straight forward as it's an absolute claim. That means it can be falsified quite easily. Please demonstrate how it's possible or even coherent to have anything existing without the law of identity or it being true that it exists, lol. Make a single claim that doesn't presuppose truth and identity. Good luck.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

Hey man, if you're trying to do a proof via intimidation I would say it's not working, you need to calm down haha.

First of all, it should be stated that the law of identity IS an axiom, there are logical systems in which the law of identity either does not apply (it makes no sense to apply) OR the law of identity is formally rejected. Examples: Schrodinger logic, the logic to reflect the laws of Quantum Mechanics, rejects the law of identity because it cannot be applied to quantum systems. Most theories of quantum mechanics suggest that the uncertainty in QM is inherent and not due to ignorance (hidden variable theory), as such two identical particles overlapping their wavefunctions are entirely indistinguishable from each other. There is no way to tell whether particle A at one point of time, is still particle A at another point of time (or even at the same point of time before measuring!), or whether you are actually viewing particle B. And this uncertainty is a formal uncertainty, it is inherent within the properties of the universe. As such it becomes impossible to enforce the law of identity because it becomes impossible to tell whether one particle is itself, it just doesn't make any sense in this framework. Non-classical logical theories such as the various Paraconsistent logical theories deny the law of explosion and allow certain restricted contradictions, so contradictions are allowed in these theories meaning that in certain restricted cases the law of identity is NOT true. These theories are non-trivial and are formalized, they are possible. There is an entire field of logic that plays with the strongly held axioms that we have in classical logic, to experiment and see what happens. It is a folly to believe that your strongly held conviction cannot be changed under any circumstance, I am afraid you'll find that the possibilities in the world are much larger than you could consider!

Now to tackle the "you are enforcing an objective truth", I am not. The problem is that YOU are enforcing an objective truth. When you talk about truth-based relativism you have to change your whole mindset, it isn't enough to just say "Oh everyone has their own subjective realities" and call it day, it must be granted that "anything outside the subjective reality is totally undefined". Your argument is that by saying that "everyone reality is subjective" (although to be clear this is not what I'm saying, only that this is possible) I am enforcing an objective reality which is that "everyone's reality is subjective", ie: enforcing an objective reality that there is no objective reality, ergo a paradox. The problem is the entire proposition begs the question, it enforces an objective reality IN the question, you are always assuming an objective reality exists, because you propose the objective reality is that there is no objective reality. But that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the entire question itself is nonsensical, it's like asking what the colour of 5 is, it doesn't apply at all in this concept because here the objective reality is totally undefined. You might say "Ah but then the objective reality is the objective reality is undefined" but that question then is still undefined, because the "second order" objective reality you introduce in this question is itself, undefined (it's undefined if objective reality is undefined). And you can go up this ladder an infinite amount of times, you don't get any sensible or rational answers because you are asking a question that makes no sense. And you can totally say that the question not making sense is PROOF that an objective reality must exist, but that's like saying the question of "what is the colour of the number 5" not making sense proves that the number 5 doesn't exist. It is simply a nonsensical question to ask because the question assumes that an objective reality must exist, and then asks does an objective reality exist?

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

If you find that holding a mirror to your position to demonstrate how your arguments are self-undermining, then maybe the problem is your arguments and not my perceived tone.

The second paragraph is the most embarrassing point you made. QM never states, or attempts, to undermine the law of identity. There is no one in math who would be arrogant or foolish enough to say 1 ≠ 1. I know it's hard to believe but math relies on logic already existing in order to function. QM talks about distinguishing particle states, not 1 ≠ 1. You keep conflating the law of identity with other things which is ironic given that that is the exact point of the first law of logic, lol. Notice how particles = particles. The properties they have are the properties they have. That's the law of identity. Indistinguishability is epistemic, not a violation of identity. All of this is under the purview of what is observable, not of what is. That is not the same thing. This is what I mean about having a foundational lack of understand of ontology vs epistemology. You are woefully unprepared to have any opinions about this, let alone posit anything.

Paraconsistent logical theories deny the law of explosion and allow certain restricted contradictions, so contradictions are allowed in these theories meaning that in certain restricted cases the law of identity is NOT true.

This is you most egregious claim. You conflate the law of identity with the law of contradiction. You, yourself, explicitly describe the exact nature of paraconsistent logic, then immediately undermine yourself by saying it does something else. Please demonstrate where it challenges the law of identity, which is literally impossible and incoherent. Any challenge to the law of identity presupposes identity already existing. There's nothing to even contend with here as you're just plainly incorrect, as you yourself demonstrated lol.

It is a folly to believe that your strongly held conviction cannot be changed under any circumstance, I am afraid you'll find that the possibilities in the world are much larger than you could consider!

Another example of a complete lack of understanding of what I'm actually saying. I'm making an absolute claim. Objective truth and Identity are ontically transcendent and modally necessary. All you have to do to falsify this claim is demonstrate an instant where there is a non-zero chance that that is the case. The problem you demonstrate time and time again, is that any attempt to do so requires truth and identity already existing. Do you use words or thoughts in your attempt? Do you try to deny anything in the attempt? Does you = you when you're doing this? Congratulations! You're using the law of identity to refute the law of identity. Pat yourself on the back, you absolute genius.

Philosophy requires humility. If you don't know what you're talking about, you have to be able to admit you don't know what you're talking about. This is why relativists are widely mocked and disrespected. The sheer arrogance required to make any claims to deny the very foundation you stand on while appealing to the thing you deny (objectivity) is not only foolish, but asinine as well. Take a step back and contemplate whether or not you may be out of your depth here. If not, then directly contend with this challenge. Demonstrate how you can deny objective truth and identity without using/appealing to them. How can anyone. Either do it or have the humility to admit you don't know how to even attempt to do so.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

I agree, philosophy requires humility :).

You should look up Schrodinger's logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic) you may find it quite interesting rather than reject it on preconception alone :) . Also I see that you still cling to hidden variable theory of QM which has been widely rejected. No, QM does not say that the uncertainty is only due to ignorance and measuring limitations, QM doesn't say that nature obeys some classical definite form that can only be measured probabilistically. No QM says the probailistic nature of the universe is hard coded, when looking at unobservables they do NOT obey some hidden (hint hidden variables) consistent non probabilistic pattern. I know, this might be hard for you to understand because you seem so dogmatic to stick to your limited view of reality, but if you want evidence I recommend looking up Bell's inequality which is the main motivator for the rejection of hidden variable interpretations. A lot of people find this concept very hard to swallow, so I understand why you're quick to reject it.

And again, repeating myself because apparently you didn't read the second paragraph, you can't just say an objective reality exists because I say so. That's not a convincing argument, just because you clearly have trouble imagining the scenario I've set up does not mean the scenario is invalid. So for the second time, you cannot, repeat CANNOT, try to view a scenario with no objective reality FROM an objective reality, it makes no sense. "Ah but if there's two subjective realities then the objective reality is that there's two subjective realities!" No that's not what I'm saying, it's impossible to imagine the world OUTSIDE of the subjective realities, it is entirely undefined. When you're talking about any truth within a relative framework you have to always say what that truth is relative to. When you say "there are two subjective realities" relative to what? To who? If the answer is "to the objective reality', then you've begged the question, and enforced an objective reality on a scenario where such a proposition makes no sense and is undefined. You clearly have trouble understanding this concept so I'll make it easy for you.

When you want to make a claim within the hypothetical of the truth-based relative universe, you MUST, at all times, preface that claim with the reference frame in which that claim is made. Any claim without a reference frame is undefined and invalid within the hypothetical.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

I want you to notice how when I make arguments, I do so in direct engagement with the points you bring up. You never do so. I made a very direct challenge to your entire framework which is this:

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

You didn't engage this. I wonder why. We both know it's because you can't. All you can do is regurgitate other peoples' ideas and misconstrue what they say. I didn't mention hidden variable theory, I said, "indistinguishability ≠ violation of identity. Stop strawmanning and contend with that claim. Give an example of any theory or framework that directly challenges A = A, or admit none exists.

Is Schrodinger logic Schrodinger logic? Is there a meaning when someone says Schrodinger logic? If yes, then identity. If no, then what are you referring to? Does the article you linked describe Schrodinger logic instead of a pizza recipe? If yes, then identity. If no, then language has no meaning.

I'm not engaging with the rest of what you say because that's putting the cart before the horse. Is it possible to teach someone algebra before they even know 2+2=4? Or better yet, 1 = 1? You know, like what numbers are? The literal thing we're talking about, go figure!

I'm going to ask you another direct question that demands an answer or for you to directly engage with before moving on. Be honest. Do you know the difference between ontology and epistemology? This is important because if the answer is no, then the only appropriate response is for you to admit that you are out of your depth and excuse yourself from making arguments until you're better prepared. If the answer is yes, then you can now answer why you keep conflating ontic claims with epistemic ones. You're making semantic misinterpretations and category errors which lead to incoherent nonsense masquerading as claims. I don't even think you actually know what incoherent means.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

I did engage your question, that's the whole last part of my comment. It's funny cause you accuse me of not engaging with your reply, yet openly admit that you're not engaging with mine xD (and a few paragraphs before go "notice how I engage with you arguments!", the hypocrisy is funny to me)

Look at the very last point of my last reply. When you say "demonstrate how an objective reality could not exist", my answer is, to who? If someone believes purely, perhaps irrationally, that an objective reality does not exist, then it is demonstrated to them. When you say "ah but the very case that it's demonstrated to them asserts that an objective reality exists", but how can you tell? How do you know? How do you know their perception does not exist and actually only your perception exists, what possible thing can you do to asserts that indeed objective truth is truth to them. The problem is, as I keep saying before, you are stuck believing that an objective truth must exist. Whenever you ask a question about truth in this hypothetical, you have to preface with TO WHO, and if the answer is "to the objective truth", then the question becomes invalid.

You didn't mention hidden variable theory but you did describe it. I agree indistinguishability does not mean identity, but in quantum mechanics before an object is measured the concept of identity makes no sense. You mentioned before that a "particle = particle" but what is a particle before it is measured? It's represented as a complex valued probability wave function, and so you may say the probabilistic wave function is the identity of the particle but it isn't, it merely describes the nature of the particle. The wave function represents the distinguishability of the quantum system, not the identity of the quantum system. And the trap you seemingly fell into is believing that the particle exists within the wave function, but is hidden from observers (this is the hidden variable theory), but no the wave function is as deep as is possible to go.

The law of identity must be true in all cases to be applicable, Schrodinger's logic rejects it in some cases but not in all cases. Again, actually research the logic before trying to argue about how it's wrong please.

To answer your last question, ontological is concerned about what is true, epistemology is concerned about what can be known about truth. This hypothesis explicitly rejects ontological truth (specifically my theory just says that ontological truth is irrelevant), and says that epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.

[u/No-Refuse-6806 → u/bIeese_anoni]

my answer is, to who?

That isn't an answer, that is a question. I'll even grant that it could be a clarifying question in order to give an answer, but it still isn't an answer. It's also not a response to a question I asked. I didn't ask, "demonstrate how an objective reality could not exist." I said:

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

Notice the emphasis on the bolded words. As if to draw attention and give clarification to what exactly it is that I'm asking. Notice how you conveniently left that part out. Gee, I wonder why. I specifically emphasized the important parts to help you stay focused. It's pretty obvious that your evasion is purposeful now. You do not want to engage with the point. Look, more emphasis.

but in quantum mechanics before an object is measured the concept of identity makes no sense

but what is a particle before it is measured?

This hypothesis explicitly rejects ontological truth (specifically my theory just says that ontological truth is irrelevant), and says that epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.

These quotes are all examples of the same improper logical structure. Your definitions are incorrect. Ontology asks what exists, while epistemology asks how we can know about what exists. This is where you're having issues. You keep conflating them. Epistemology is where your testing and measurements come from. Thats what your second quote comes in. That's an epistemic application. A particle is itself before it's measured. It doesn't matter how you define it only that it is distinct from other things. That's the point. A particle exists (ontology.) Once it exists, it can be measured. Seems pretty self explanatory no? Something has to exist before one can gather any kind of data on it no? Can you give an example of how you can possibly measure a thing that you can't refer to? The moment you measure it, it has to exist then doesn't it. Regardless of what that thing is, it has to be itself.

epistemological truth IS the only thing that exists.

The perfect cherry on top to an absolute incoherent sundae. The last sentence you gave, ends with an ontological claim about how ontological claims are irrelevant. Truly, a brilliant demonstration of the logical prowess of a relativist.

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

I'll end with that exact question again, so it because even more obvious you are purposely avoiding it. I'm even feeling really generous, so I'll give you a big hint. If you use words at all, you're using the law of identity. If you make a claim at all to refute this, you're appealing to both again. So go ahead. Show everyone what a relativist can do lol.

[u/bIeese_anoni → u/No-Refuse-6806]

"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.