Ontology what is the observer observing? The action of being a meas...

In thinking about philosophical foundations, principals like Axioms of Truth, Existence and consciousness many people are mislead by ideas that have no existence in reality. When formulating a Axiom or Principal one has to be extremely careful to stay within the bounds of logic and reason. After all it is well known that in order to know a thing exist one must be able to bring the object into ones sense limitations. Without that ability one is imagining the existence of the object and thus their is no measurement that can be applied using logic and reason.

The only test that can be used to determine something exist in the now moments of time is to bring it into the limitations of your ability to sense.

If you cannot do this for any logical reason: their is also no way for you or anyone to use logical conditions to reason about that which you cannot show exist. This creates a conundrum, because the best tool we have is logic and reason. If however you wish to confuse the ability of a people to use logic and reason one would have to find a way to hide the none existent nature of the imaginary object.

What we see happening in the real world is standard ideas being miss-used to obfuscate the standard and any moral's associated with the ideas. Take for example the use of euphemisms to obfuscate the standard ideas around the none aggression principal. Murder is and always has been against the none aggression principal. However this doesn't stop murder from happening especially mass murder which is always 100% of the time brought about by agencies or tyrannical governments. They just don't call it murder even though it absolutely fits the definition supplied. Instead they call it the killings of war. Which is a euphemism and murder on a massive scale.

The exact same murder of the ideas using euphemisms in philosophy has been going on for a very long time. Lets take a look at what an object is defined as. Than we can look at the word Objectivity and see if we are seeing a euphemism and we will also look briefly at the word existence.

Object

In philosophy

An object is a technical term in modern philosophy often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. More at Wikipedia

The meat of this is too fold. One an object is a thing for an abject to be sensed it also needs an observer. What is the observer observing. The measurable attributes of the object. This in my opinion is why logic and reason can be used upon objects making object that exist rational. We can use the observer to ascertain the conditions which the objects being provides. Thus we need to know what being means.

Existence

Existence, in its most generic terms, the ability to physically interact with the universe or multiverse. What existence is exactly is up for interpretation. This is one of the most important and fundamental topics of ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. More at Wikipedia

This is actually describing a verb. The act that is described that is the verb is the being in existence that allows for the condition of interacting with the universe. So what we have is an observer observing an object that is performing the action of being, which is what is being measured. So one could say that a foot that is 12"inches long is existing in a state of being a foot long. So measurements are really measuring the action of being, which is the true state of the universe.

This can be confusing because we are attempting to distinguish between objects at rest (which is a state that doesn't actually exist) and objects in motion. Really however by doing so we deny the action of being-ness of existence and being. In truth when we say an object is stationary we are really describing the apparent state and not the actual state of an object. Thus we can see that in order for something to be observed it must be performing the action of being and thus measurable.

Do object exist in a state of being without us being able to measure it. They could, but what is important is that without the ability to measure an object we have no way of showing it to exist in a state of being, making it irrational and not something that logic and reason can be used to determine its action in the universe. I have also observed that when people attempt to rationalize using logic and reason on things that don't exist in a state of being (measurable) the conclusions don't actually exist either.

So we can now describe a necessary condition for determining existence, objects, and observers. For an observer to observe an object he must be measuring the being action of the object, which allows for logic and reason to be used to determine the effects or affects (both verbs) of the objects in the universe. Thus in order for us to show an object there must be a measurement of the object. Let us now observe the action or lack thereof of the word Objectivity.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. More at Wikipedia

Let take this apart and see if we can find the verb to be measured that tells us we can use logic and reason on the object. So the first part of the definition is telling us"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept" that Objectivity exist as a concept. Where do concept reside and can they be measured. As far as I know they exist in the mind. As far as I know I may be able to measure the thought that occur in the brain and know as an observer that thoughts do exist, but we are not talking about just a thought or are we? The second phrase of importance makes it clear however that Objectivity has not been measured "related to reality and truth which has been variously defined by sources".

The only source that can be used to describe an object is the observer and the only thing the observer can be describing is the object. Otherwise the concept is based in the mind which lots of people don't think exist in and of itself, calling it a projection of the brain.

The point is that there is not an object that we can measure and thus nothing to use logic and reason on. Thus Objectivity is irrational and we cannot use logic and reason on objects that we cannot measure irrespective of whether or not there is an object. The key point is objectivity is immeasurably. So we cannot show objectivity to exist, have being, or its action.

This post was inspired by Hive account@kernel . The quote below is the spark that ended in the words of this post.