Are objects objective?

Question

Let's say there's a small rock on Pluto. If humans went to Pluto and determined the rock's size with a precise ruler, then:

• the existence of the rock would be an objective fact
• the size of the rock would be an objective fact

Am I correct so far?

Now, instead, let's say no mind has ever seen or imagined this rock. It still exists, and it has the same size. My question is, are the rock's existence and its size:

• objective
• subjective
• neither objective nor subjective

My current thinking is that the rock itself needs to be defined as an object first. Maybe another form of life would not see it as a separate object, or see it as several distinct objects – we don't know that our perception of objects is universal. Maybe there's a dark matter form of life that doesn't interact with normal matter in the same way we do.

In my opinion, an object is not an object without a mind to experience it. Without a mind, it's just a bunch of matter and energy that may or may not be considered as an object, depending on perception. So the existence and the properties of this object can not be objective.

Answer 1

You are using the term in a slang sense. In philosophy objectivity is a concept that EXPRESSES a proposition that does not alternate or change in truth value and is unbiased . For instance something that is a FACT expresses an objective claim. I do not use Fact in the slang sense where many people in science refer to sense experience or human authority make something an alleged FACT. A fact by definition is something that has already occurred and reflects that the proposition corresponds to the real world as well as the fact cannot have various outcomes. That is a fact can not be wrong. Your statement was wrong. No human authority or sense experience is needed.

Objective claims do not depend on the perception of the observer. For instance archeologist were not present during the time of the dinosaurs but have extracted plenty of information. Truth can be classified differently. What makes claim x objective is that there is no emotive or personal interests or biases involved and no matter who examines claim x the value will be identical unless emotive things are also involved. In this way objective claims are universal everywhere in the domain of discourse. So when I claim all triangles have three sides the truth value remains the same in every continent and every place human beings reside on the planet Earth.

The same way propositions express truth values that are either true or false objective values are similar. There are objective truths that DO NOT change in truth values. They can forever be TRUE or claims can be forever be FALSE. There are also contingent truths. Truths that alternate truth value. That is statement x can be true today and statement x will be false a few hours later. For instance where I live sometimes it is raining and sometimes it is not raining. It is not the case it rains forever.

Objective truths also have relevance to normative ethics --what many call morals. It should not be the case moral claims be subjective. Philosophy would serve no purpose in that topic if morals were subjective. The idea is that normative claims have objectivity and that makes them worth while. Because you don't know the value of a claim is no excuse to express a claim has no truth value. Objectively there either is a God or there isn't. There is no middle ground. You can make an objective claim without emotional attachment. Most people do not do this though.

Answer 2

... Am I correct so far?

Nope :).
But your subsequent remark,

... we don't know that our perception of objects is universal.

is indeed correct.

The decomposition of reality into "objects" (more technically, aka "subsystems") is more in your mind than you might naively be tempted to think. Coincidentally, just in the last few days, a pretty deep physical and mathematical analysis was published in https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01943

Note the first few sentences of the abstract, "Dividing the world into subsystems is an important component of the scientific method. The choice of subsystems, however, is not defined a priori. Typically, it is dictated by our experimental capabilities, and, in general, different agents may have different capabilities."

He (G.Chiribella) goes on (in Section 2) to formally define those "agents", whereby you could interpret yourself (your mind perceiving transformations accomplished by actions of your body and of any equipment you've constructed) as such an "agent". You'll need some math background to follow his development, but (in my opinion) it'll be well worth the effort if you're really interested in this kind of stuff (and I'm pretty sure it has some very significant on-topic insights for this forum).

Answer 3

The undiscovered rock on Pluto can be said to exist in the set of "undiscovered things". Obviously the rock specifically (and perhaps other things on Pluto) cannot be known, but the set of "undiscovered things" is a tangible, objective 'thing'. (You can go and discover something from it.)

This topic reminds me of Heidegger's consideration of the necessary, anterior material basis for Being, which cannot be observed but can be reasonably deduced, (as I hazily recall).