>>13390190the person you're replying to is a faggot but your definition of objective truth could be tighter. many of the things you take for granted as fact aren't entirely understood by science. yes its a fact that the speed of light is always c. but this raises questions such as, why? and, how do we really prove/test/observe for string theory and plank time?
see, if a fact has large unanswered questions hanging off of it, we can assume it to be reliable, but not objectively true. also when you consider that other types of worlds, let alone universes can exist, your use of language is very narrow
>the acceleration of free falling objects at around sea level is 9.81 m/sthis statement wouldn't have much meaning at all for anyone who doesnt know what a meter is, or sea level, or hell even a second. you do realize humans have entirely arbitrarily defined the world right? yes this is semantics now, yes your facts are true, but they are not universally objectively facts, rather, relatively objective. and your lack of clarity in this distinction is causing a lot of confusion
