August 18th, 2008, 02:24 PM
No thing is absolute
Absolute - perfect or complete or pure; "absolute loyalty"; "absolute silence"; "absolute truth"; "absolute alcohol"
My mind tells me that no thing can be absolutely true or absolutely one definable thing. I cannot prove otherwise. Maybe someone else can?
Maybe someone can tell of something absolute in its nature and hold that strong to the points i will fight against it.
August 19th, 2008, 04:55 AM
if nothing is absolute, then that would be an absolute, however it would negate it's conclusionOriginally Posted by Dlrow
death is absolute.
August 19th, 2008, 05:57 AM
Ate you absolutely sure?
I cannot prove that I am not a character in a book. Or that the next page hasn't been eaten by a goat.
All squares are absolutely square. All circles are absolutely circle.
August 19th, 2008, 02:38 PM
Unfortunately the concept of a "square" or a "circle" is an abstraction as nature has no perfect renditions of either. These concepts are only "absolute" in our minds because we define them to be so. The argument is therefore a tautology I guess :-D
A similar argument might apply to natural (counting) numbers. Say I have 5 oranges - is "5" an absolute quantity?
Again, the enumeration of objects require that we hypothesis a "class" of "orange" we define arbitrarily as equivalent and exactly equal. Then, in our minds, we by definition consider the quantity to be an absolute - there are 5 and only 5 oranges, not 3, not 7 etc.
However what if we considered the class definition to be based on weight? Then each object would now be different. We no longer have "5" instead we have weight_1, weight_2,...,weight_5. We can say we "absolutely" have 5 "weight measurements" but then that once more returns to an internal construction in our minds.
So I tend to think that all things are relative as Einstein said, but also is there any advantage to having "absolutes"?. Perhaps a world where certain observations are incontrovertible would be a bit boring?
Science usually attempts to explain the universe in terms of a proposed theory with predictive capability. It is then a great idea to try and find fault with such theory through experiment and so weed out the duds(Carl Popper's interpretation if I have understood it properly). People often talk about "experiments that went wrong" - as a previous poster pointed out, this is not possible as the best outcome is one that falsifies a theory - no theory can be proved through any amount of corroborative experimental support or mutual agreement between people. Theories on the other hand can be disproved through contradiction between predictive outcome and measurement. This, seems to me, to be the most fascinating outcome to hope for.
However we are not(as yet) machines, although we maybe should not consider that machines could not inherit human attributes in the future, so we have psychological dependencies on "guaranteed areas of doubt and uncertainty" - (hitchhikers guide to the galaxy). Equally, scientists and mathematicians sometimes get emotionally involved in their pet theories and ideas and this can cloud their objectivity. Maybe "human nature" is an absolute?
Once again, "human nature" is just a human term used to attempt to explain some predictable aspect of behavior. It is hard however to use the concept to predict the behavior of an individual - given any situation, people tend to behave towards the situation in different fashions. All we have done is pretend to have an understanding and then pretend to believe this as representing an "absolute" conceptualization.
Is the difference between scientific method and religion an absolute? We have terms like "Christian science" and some posts suggesting that Islam heralded many aspects of scientific discovery. However religions tend to present "truth" in an absolute fashion. This "truth" is defined as "faith" although perhaps "trust" would be a higher form. Is the contradiction between science and religion an absolute?
Even "contradiction" is not an absolute. For example is (A and not A) false? From what little I understand of quantum mechanics, A can be indeterminate, e.g. as a probability wave function that only collapses to either A or not A after a measurement. Therefore A has 3 states, "A", "not A" and "indeterminate A". If this interpretation seems sensible, then contradiction may not represent an absolute method of distinguishing right from wrong (in the world of concepts at least!)
Continuing, we still will desire some resolution between science and faith. However, could this be similar to asking "which is correct, and orange or an apple?". Surely both cannot be correct? Either the orange is correct and the apple is wrong, or the apple is correct and the orange is wrong? Wouldn't this seem to be absolutely absurd?
We could also ask about people in a room. Each will have their own unique personality, life experience, social background, race, beliefs etc. Just as we have many religions, does this mean that one person is "absolutely" correct and all other people are, in comparison, "wrong"?
I tend to think that all people are correct, and all philosophies are correct - if such a term of "correctness" has absolute application :wink:
no it isn't.
Here and now, for you, show yourself one thing which is absolute..
I am trying and i cannot find an absolute in the here and now.
Nothing is perfect as perfect depends on how you look at it and nothing is complete in this reality as everything is always changing.. even a great big lump of freezing cold metal is under change despite the way it looks so still.
So i ask again.. What is the absolute?
no
death is relative to those who have taken birth
August 20th, 2008, 02:40 AM
Huh? When and where did he say that?
For record, Newton didn't say that all things must fall, and Archimedes didn't say that all things must float. Please don't distort scientific discoveries to prove your philosophical points.
Peace and clarity,
Leszek.
August 20th, 2008, 05:12 AM
Sorry Leszek
No offense was intended and I have no need to "prove" some idle thoughts on my part. I should have been clearer with respect to my understanding of Einstein's conjecture; as opposed to having "absolute" positions in space or time, he proposed "relativity".
August 20th, 2008, 05:16 AM
I wasn't offended; just pointing out a misquote.
Peace and clarity,
Leszek.
I am shocked that no one here has yet recognized the oxymoron in the OP.
Dirow said:
The statement is self contradicting. It is either true or false in itself. If "no thing" is absolute, then the statement itself is absolutely true, which means it is actually false in that it says no thing is absolute. If there are things which are absolute, then the statement is absolutely false, which again is an absolute which the statement denies exists.oNo thing is absolute
Dirow's apparent intentional placement of a space in "no thing" does not work to limit the statement. "No thing" still means "nothing."
Putting it into the positive, the statement would read everything is relative -- relative being the opposite of absolute.
The truth is that some things are relative and somethings are absolute. I have discussed this concept here before on a different thread. But we will go through it again.
If I tell you that butter pecan flavored Haagen-Daaz ice cream is the best tasting ice cream in the world, this is a relative statement. It is relative to my personal tastes. While you cannot disagree that as to me, it is true, you may well disagree and suggest that strawberry-banana is the best flavor whereupon that statement is relative to your personal tastes.
But what if I tell you that butter pecan flavored Haagen-Daaz will cure diabetes? This statement is absolutely false. It is not a matter that ice cream can cure some of diabetes because they think it will.
The thing here is that such a claim (no absolutes) absolutely defies the rule of logic that says something cannot both be and not be at the same time. It is call the law of contradiction. The concept that there are no absolutes, absolutely violates that law.
While one might be able to suggest that there is no such thing as an absolutely perfect square or circle, one could not equally say there is not such thing as as perfect triangle which needs only three sides to qualify as a triangle. A three-sided figure is an absolute triangle. It cannot be anything else. So there is just one things which is absolute. Need I show more?
No thing and nothing are the same, one can use one word or two words to describe what one needs to. Well done for pointing this out as it was intended.
Still have not recieved any absolute.
Do not search for an absolute truth which you can prove by concept, for instance impossibility of ice cream as a cure of cancer or the impossibility of ten dogs sprouting wings and setting off into the far distant universe to bring back information of new alien life.. we could all do this and deem these concepts as absolutley not true..
Due to ice cream's inability to cure cancer it is a negative and therfore should be considered as a non-truth not as a truth that it is impossible.
Present an absolute truth of existence not non existence.
Cognito ergo sum.
This still is not absolute.
'I' is an illusion, 'I' is totally impossible to define, 'I' is a million things within you and 'I' is nothing.
Well, how about "non cognitas ergo non es"
What about the triangle thing? Is not a three sided figure an absolute triangle? And don't say triangle is only a symbol. It is a name we have given to stand for a three sided plane geometry figure. A rose, by any other name, still smells sweet. No matter if you call a triangle a frimbitz, it is still and absolute frimbitz if it has three sides.
By the way, do you think it is ever permissible to torture a 2-year-old child for your own personal pleasure?
I am assuming you do not believe there are any absolute rights or wrongs either.
The speed of light in a vacuum seems to be an absolute limit to the transfer of information. The Planck length appears to be an absolute limit to precision of measurement. No, I can't prove it.
August 20th, 2008, 07:58 PM
Bullmalarky, these concepts can be mathematically defined absolutely without any reference to nature and without any use of the word or concept of "absolute". So unless Dlrow wants to start making exceptions to his self-contradictory absolute then it has abundantly been shown to be full of crock. It is like shouting "WORDS DO NOT EXIST" and then say that saying that it doesn't count when the word are shouted. It just a BS reason for not requiring what one is saying to be logically consistent in any way at all.
Well, Mitchell, this type of thinking is classic postmodern relativism. I begin to think this is synonymous with idiotic stupidity, redundant though it is. And to shudder, the world will someday be in the hands of this kind of insanity.
Most of it already is. And yes I do shudder. When relativism is pushed to its full logical consequences, the answer to this:
will be: some people think it is not permissible, and fanatically try to impose this view on others.
There are no absolute right and wrongs concerning people
Humans are masters of the art of justifying their definitions and manipulating the truth and their reasons of what a wrong or right things is, if only to themselves.
That's the trouble with definitions, everyone has their own personal definitions, especially when it comes to moral acts
I bet Gary Glitter will give a very different answer to the question than me
See? I told you this would be the logical consequence. Didn't know it would come so soon though.There are no absolute right and wrongs concerning people
Take cover,
Leszek.
See what?See? I told you this would be the logical consequence. Didn't know it would come so soon though.There are no absolute right and wrongs concerning people
Take cover,
Leszek.
Can't see that you said anything of the sort
But you seem to enjoy thinking your a good example of a 'person' and i think you are
So we'll amuse you :-D
This statement (here and now) exists.
Edit:
On second thoughts, let's allow a few (philosophically speaking) redundancies just to make clear why this is an absolute, and a big one:
"This statement exists, therefore there is something instead of nothing."
It is an absolute statement and proof within itself of the existence of something instead of nothing.
True.
Ah, there are conditions to "people" or "people" is meaningless. Whatever's at the heart of "people" must be maintained, or you're not a person. Whether or not it stands to reason is irrelevant.
[quote]based on the assumption that there are no absolute persons .... like god for egTrue.
Yup. God won't stand to reason either.
So take your pick. I guess a lot of folks are less comfortable putting faith in real people, than an abstract person.
Must be maintainedTrue.
Ah, there are conditions to "people" or "people" is meaningless. Whatever's at the heart of "people" must be maintained, or you're not a person. Whether or not it stands to reason is irrelevant.
- what do you mean by that Pong?
What is at the 'heart' of people?
Or you're not a person?
What do you mean by this?
And what's reason got to do with it?
Difference in moral perspectives and ideals is obvious all around us.
My morals differ to that of someone like Mr Gary Glitter for example and for our own particular reasons
Is this reason, the one you consider to irrelevant?
Therefore there are no absolute rights and wrongs
There are only our individual absolutes
It just is, and i was making a statement of this 'is' simply through observation
It is within the physical laws of nature/reality for one body to torture another and that is why it is permitable - in reality.
There is no such thing as an absolute triangle. All objects with 3 sides are of different size making there no one triangle absolute. If all triangles are different how can there be one absolute triangle?
This is the very essence of the subject of absolutes.. There is no absolute.
''There is no absolute'' - is not a contradiction as it dismisses the meaning of the word.
True.
Ah, there are conditions to "people" or "people" is meaningless. Whatever's at the heart of "people" must be maintained, or you're not a person. Whether or not it stands to reason is irrelevant."People" is a term robustly defined. Largely it's defined by common sentiment, but more and more so thanks to science. Stray too far from that, by definition you're no longer a person.
Mushy subjective mammal crap mostly. Good stuff. Love. Sympathy.
Think about what "humane" means.
I find I'm already so person I can't change even if my beliefs demand it.
Very little! Here you have two eyes. Reason your way out of that!
The only reasonable course is acceptance of what we are. Even if we think five eyes better, two must be just right ...for people. Reason must concede the arbitrary, even the irrational & contradictory. Human men by definition have nipples. That's right.
That's where are attention is. Regardless, we all love to pet kittens and we enjoy salty snacks. We're in the same boat practically. The differences are mostly abstract & removed from real consequence, e.g. what happens to you after death.
I reckon we share common ground though our perspective differs. You know the myth of Sisyphus? Suppose there were two, each pushing identical boulders in opposite directions. Such are our differences.
Actually there are many different Sisyphi up to various devices. Ironically they all push away from the common condition, that is: human. And they all tumble back to get approximately 8hrs sleep each night.
True, though airplanes absolutely do fly, pigs absolutely do not. If you want to be human, you must embody humanity.
Wishful thinking. Your mother tongue, you'll type reply in that I trust.
pong said:
Hmmm. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all real people. Are you suggesting we should put our faith in people like these? My observation of history is that mankind has done a very good job of screwing the world over both ecologically and socially. Why would you put your faith in men? They are proven failures. Men have even screwed up God's message.I guess a lot of folks are less comfortable putting faith in real people, than an abstract person.
No, we did and still do regard them as idealized figureheads, not real people. Why do you think of idolatry? I'm suggesting we - well, I do - put our faith in humankind.
I don't believe you're such a misanthrope. What an ungrateful brat.
I'm sorry Pong
Most of your comments are difficult to answer
because they make very little sense
Your definitions are wishy washy and your statements are obscure.
That's true. Neither crystalline nor dressed for debate. Such is life.
Humanity is wishy washy and obscure.
Only as wishy and washy as we allow itThat's true. Neither crystalline nor dressed for debate. Such is life.
Humanity is wishy washy and obscure.
I think yes there is such a diversity in life, that waters down such ideas and definitions as good, bad or absolute
In that respects it's difficult to say that there is one or another, or this and not that.
But i think there is a reason for that as life becomes more complex
I don't think truth lies in a 'it's this and not that' theory
We can either view this diversity complexity as a confusing murky wishy washy pool to drown in
Or we can view and appreciate it as an endless pool of possibilities and potential where all opposites exist and there is no such thing as a this and not that there just is.
The concept of absolute cannot exist without the concept of not absolute.
My final words on this are;
Absolute is a word trying to make any particular thing complete and never changing in its perfect nature/state.
I have never experienced such a 'thing' or recieved any plausable information to convinse me of such a 'thing'.
So until one experiences a never changing and perfect thing why continue to battel for the existence of a delusion?
Why say this physical reality in itself is absolute when it is always in a state of change?
There is a true meaning of the word absolute but no thing in common observation can forfill its meaning.
How can one fight a worthy battel for the existence of the absolute if one have never experienced it?
Pong and Dlrow both suffer from the malady of postmodernism in which the individual makes up his own definitions of words to fit his own purposes. For the rest of us, words already have definitions and we adapt ourselves to using them as they have already been defined rather than attempting to make the words adapt themselves to our own twisted meanings. Postmodernists see no need to conform to rules of logic or facts or reality. They tend to create their own rules of logic, their own facts and a separate reality.
So you can say that all others apart from so called 'postmodernists' have the exact same meaning and defination of words as you?
Where did you recieve your definations from? All from the same source i hope? And ask yourself who made up that source?
Words are a mere fleeting description of a thing which is totally impossible to percieve in its absolute essence.
How can you say these words have solid defination?
Conveniently ignoring my earlier post that addressed, I believe fully, your OP.
Sorry i cannot understand the above post please explain..
There are also questions in my last post which ask for answers, there are no right and wrong answers but an attempt at answering them would be appreciated.
sunshinewarrior wrote;
This statement (here and now) exists.
Edit:
On second thoughts, let's allow a few (philosophically speaking) redundancies just to make clear why this is an absolute, and a big one:
"This statement exists, therefore there is something instead of nothing."
Dlrow - In this case all existence must be absolute as it exists. Yet this is not true as all things in existence are constantly under change, even your statement will one day cease to exist. In my current defination of the word Absolute your statement does not match up to absolute as at this very moment it is changing in physical form.
It is an absolute statement and proof within itself of the existence of something instead of nothing.
Dlrow said:
Well, this is a problem for post-modernists. They are so busy redefining the world in their own terms that they cannot even understand what they themselves have said. When you abandon reality and logic as Dlrow and Pong consistently do, there is no basis for understanding.Sorry i cannot understand the above post please explain..
daytonturner..
I will explain as best i can..
One cannot expect to understand a point of view of another by putting them into a catagory. Rather than simply trying to understand the points i have made, you are putting me and pong in the catagory 'postmodernist' where other things are attached. Forget all you have learnt about postmodernism and focus upon these points in themselves without catagorising them.
I can understand my post fine, i could not understand the following;
sunshinewarrior said - Conveniently ignoring my earlier post that addressed, I believe fully, your OP.
I reflected upon sunshinewarrior's post on page 2 and gave a reply to it, that is the one in bold with my response to it in blue colour.
If you cannot understand something its often because you are not seeing it from the other persons point of view. Stop all your own thoughts and dive into the other person's post, examine that post, then dive back into your own way of thinking to create whatever you think about what you have understood.
I do not abandon reality, the only rules are those people make up.
The word logic is over used and commonly misplaced.
I think we're talking about different things.Only as wishy and washy as we allow itThat's true. Neither crystalline nor dressed for debate. Such is life.
Humanity is wishy washy and obscure.
I'm talking about the difficulty of assigning a neat definition to "person". Look up "person": A person is a human. Look up "human": A human is a person. 'Round and 'round. Oh and it's neither animal nor thing.
The snap reaction might be to say, "Oh, everybody just knows what people are" and I think that's true on one level. It's intuited, from "Mushy subjective mammal crap mostly. Good stuff. Love. Sympathy." That obscure & tangled mass of conditions we cant' change. No question of allowing them or not, really.
Ignorance and denial is possible though. The intellect would like to say people are this or that, absolutely. We would regard "people" in idealized terms: Daytonturner might like to say people are God's perfect children; Absum! might like to say people are spirits of unlimited consciousness (just common examples). Philosophical debates tend that way.
I argue "wishy washy" is essential to our definition. I.e. sloppy arbitrary irrationality, comes first. Our correct definition is rooted in a banal pith, and holds contradictions. We can't intellectualize our way free of it. That I am absolutely certain of. People are full of ...stuff. Anybody care to argue & prove my point? :wink:
Does this mean no absolutes? Philosophically yes. Ethically no.
Geeze, people, the right way of looking at stuff gotta be easyer than this!
This is driving me mad, i just want to know the truth about what i am.
I dont want this means that and that means this, i dont even like thinking about it!!!!!! I dont know, i simply dont know anything.
I dont want to know what absolute is, i no longer care. I dont want to define words any more i just want to leave alone and be left alone.
I got half of me laughing my arse off and the other half in confusing state of blubber.
Im off.
August 22nd, 2008, 04:33 PM
I can conlude all previous paragraphs after this in two words in the most basic for of the question, by using them to conclude these two words:
Quite right.
That now aside, If I may rephrase the statement.... Ahem....
Nothing is absolute.
This discussion is meaningless.
Some things are absolute, others not. It may depend upon several things like conception, definition, etc...
You have absolute zero, absolute motion, absolute uncertainty, absolute absolute, absolute real, absolute oxygen, absolute destruction, absolute energy, absolute speed, absolute outcome, absolute true statements, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong about a few (or even all?), but it's clear that the concept of absolute is, well... absolute
(Why isn't this thread in the philosophy section btw?)
Dlrow said:
Well, if you do not want to be considered a post-modernist, you really need to stop expressing these kinds of post modern ideas. The quoted section is a classic example of post-modern thinking.If you cannot understand something its often because you are not seeing it from the other persons point of view. Stop all your own thoughts and dive into the other person's post, examine that post, then dive back into your own way of thinking to create whatever you think about what you have understood.
I do not abandon reality, the only rules are those people make up.
The word logic is over used and commonly misplaced.
You are saying exactly what post modern thinking is all about. You take what someone else has said or written and reinterpret it according to "your own way of thinking." In other words, what the person said means what you think it means regardless of what he intended.
Modern thinking says that when a person says something, it means what they intended it to mean, not what someone else things it might mean.
Secondly, when the other person's point of view is illogical, unfactual, or irrational, there should be no requirement that others consider it from that point of view. If someone says something that is illogical, unfactual or irrational, I refuse to look at it as anything other than illogical, unfactual or irrational.
Thirdly, the reasons people have made up rules is because that is how we can function in relationship to one another. When people violate the rules, they cause problems for everybody else because we depend on others to operate within the rules. When people lie or cheat or steal, they are violating the rules and it disrupts peace and harmony and security and all the things we look at as being ideal.
Finally, the last sentence of what I quoted is the most tell-tale indication of post modern thinking and the reason you do not understand. Our understanding is based on people being logicial. It is logic that takes us to the moon; it is logic that helps us grow food just to name a couple of things we need logic for.
If you cannot understand the "Nothing is absolute," is a self defeating statement which is false, it shows that you do not understand logic and do not have the capacity to effectively communicate with others. You cannot communicate with modernist thinkers who will demand logical statements. You cannot effectively communicate with post-modernists because you cannot depend on them to interpret what you said in the way you meant. They may well decide you meant just the opposite of what you actually said. Of course, to the post-modernist, it does not make any difference anyway.
The word logic means that things should make sense. I do not see how you could overuse that or misplace it.
.
daytonturner all you do is pick out the parts you can give your negative opinion of and ignore the parts which you dont want to post on.
Im sorry for misinterperating things and if that makes me a most podern thinker then screw it, i am and you can call me this all day long getting still, nowhere.
Get real man ffs.
Dlrow said:
No, what I have done is picked out only the most glaring of the many illogical errors and irrational thoughts and non-facts in your posts. It's not that I don't "want" to comment on the other parts, it's just that it would make the posts too long.daytonturner all you do is pick out the parts you can give your negative opinion of and ignore the parts which you dont want to post on.
Remind us again, Dayton, if society has been ruled these past many centuries by theists or atheists?
Not a point of import, but it might provide relevance to your observation of history.
I would say the world has been ruled by mankind, not by God.
Absolutely correct!
But, mankind has been under the influence of ideologies for a wide variety of gods, yes?
daytonturner - No, what I have done is picked out only the most glaring of the many illogical errors and irrational thoughts and non-facts in your posts. It's not that I don't "want" to comment on the other parts, it's just that it would make the posts too long.
The best centences are those no larger than few lines.. but please write as you need to in order to point out the errors in the following and i will directly reply;
sunshinewarrior wrote; "This statement exists, therefore there is something instead of nothing."
The above applying that the statement is absolute.. My reply is as follows..
Dlrow - In this case all existence must be absolute as it exists. Yet this is not true as all things in existence are constantly under change, even your statement will one day cease to exist. In my current defination of the word Absolute your statement does not match up to absolute as at this very moment it is changing in physical form.
''There is no absolute'' - is not a contradiction as it dismisses the meaning of the word.
The above is the essence of the subject of absolutes.
(Q) asked:
Is not this question in direct conflict with your belief that no God(s) exist?But, mankind has been under the influence of ideologies for a wide variety of gods, yes?
If no God(s) exist and you agree that the world has and is suffering ecologically and socially, then the only possible answer is that no such influence could have been exerted on mankind. The ideologies are man-made and ascribed to non-exitent God(s) and the current conditions are the result of a Godless world.
That is the simplistic result you must come to through your belief.
On the other hand you could look at societies with known Godless ideologies such as Nazism, Communism and Maoism and compare them to suspected religiously influenced ideologies. And since there are different religious ideologies represented mostly by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, you could look at the societies under their influence and see which have been or are suffering less from an ecological or social standpoint.
These are the complex possibilities you must consider if you believe in spirituality.
Way to simplify your life, (Q)!
Subject matter - No absolute exists
My last post supports this statement.
By the way, you do not need to know anything to feel connection with spirit.
Dlrow said:
I'm not sure if you are asking me to dissect the sunshine quote or your reply. Sunshine's comment is logically sound.The best centences are those no larger than few lines.. but please write as you need to in order to point out the errors in the following and i will directly reply;
sunshinewarrior wrote; "This statement exists, therefore there is something instead of nothing."
The above applying that the statement is absolute.. My reply is as follows..
Dlrow - In this case all existence must be absolute as it exists. Yet this is not true as all things in existence are constantly under change, even your statement will one day cease to exist. In my current defination of the word Absolute your statement does not match up to absolute as at this very moment it is changing in physical form.
''There is no absolute'' - is not a contradiction as it dismisses the meaning of the word.
The above is the essence of the subject of absolutes.
Well, there is a truth in your response when you say that even sunshine's statement will one day cease to exist. Jesus says in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." So He agrees that sunshine's statement will pass away, but not that HIS words will pass away.
But again I must instruct you that you do not have the right to redefine words. God has not given you that right, no government has given you that right, none of the dictionary publishers have given you permission to change their meanings.,this forum has not given you that right. What prevents you from changing your "current definition" of a word if you suddenly decide you don't like YOUR definition. The reason we already have definitions for words is so that when we attempt to communicate, we are talking about the same thing.
If I was telling you about my big fuzzy dog and then showed you a picture of my dog and you saw an alligator, it would be obvious that we were not talking about the same thing. One of us does not know what a dog is. If you are using some different meaning to the word "absolute," you should not be surprised that others think you have no idea what you are talking about.
You say: '''There is no absolute' - is not a contradiction as it dismisses the meaning of the word."
Again, when we say something, it connotes meaning. You cannot use a word and then dismiss it. I have no concept of what logic would allows you to write an absolutely self contradictory statement and claim that the contradiction dismisses the meaning of the word.
In fact, I am not sure which word you think you dismissed -- absolute?
Again, as I tried to show you before, when you say, "There is no absolute," you have made an absolute statement in which case there is at least one absolute, making the statement untrue. It is like saying, "The only constant is change." Or, "The only truth is that there is no truth." They are all self defeating. If the statement is true, it is false. If the statement is false, it is false. None of these statements can be true.
Are you attempting to apply the English rule of double negatives turning such a statement into a positive. If that is the case, would it not be more clear to say, "There are absolutes?"
Dlrow later wrote:
It is hard to hold you to your word because you keep changing your own quote. Originally you said, "Nothing is absolute." Then you said "There is no absolute." And now you say, "No absolutes exist."Subject matter - No absolute exists
My last post supports this statement.
In any event you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Your last post does not support that concept anyplace other than in your own mind.
The sad thing here is that you lack even the basic common sense that God gave a goose to understand these things.
The essence of the subject of absolutes is that there are things which are absolute and there are things that are not absolute. Sometimes, the most difficult thing is determining which is which.
Ok screw it, iv had enough of trying to get it out of you, let me get straight to the point for you.
All the petty things man consider as absolute are not absolute in comparison to the eternal one true absolute with no name.
This with no name is the only thing worthy of defining the word absolute.
No man can define such a word when it's true defination is such that it is behond the abode of the common experience of man.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
Well, why say anything else is absolute?
I didn't.
I didn't.
P.S. You really need to explore the use of irony as a tool to highlight logical inconsistencies within an argument - and secondarily, to introduce an element of humour to weighty proceedings.
Well laugh if you please, i do find this quite funny
You deny the existence of absolutes and claim that we -who invented the word (humans)- can't even comprehend it nor define it properly.
That is hilarious if you ask me
Well, do you even know who made that word up? If you do know who made it up.. do you know their direct defination of it or what they were applying it to?
No words have definate definations. No words are absolute. Words are dependent on context and interpretation.
And general definition...
Being absolute is the same as being full, complete, total, free of imperfection, finished, without incompleteness.
Yes and there are no things within actuality that match up to those combination of words.
Absolute zero, absolute soundness, absolute action/reaction, etc, etc, etc...
I disagree, i think these so called absolutes can be broken. Just because we think we cannot get an object any colder does not mean that it is not possible.
As Oblviously wrote: "Being absolute is the same as being full, complete, total, free of imperfection, finished, without incompleteness."
Dlrow responded:
Again, I must disagree with Dlrow here. Dlrow, Apopo, and Pong are all full, complete, total, free of imperfection, finished, without incompleteness in their idiotic post-modern approach in which they have abandon logic, facts and rationality. And they are absolutely and perfectly oblivious to their disconnect from reality.Yes and there are no things within actuality that match up to those combination of words.
Come back and say something of value when you wake up from the land of ignorance please daytontuner..
Nothing in this reality is finished as everything is in a state of change.
Gentlemen, we have here what is called a difference of opinion: the life blood of forums. As you explore these differences of opinion please attempt to be good humoured about these differences. Faced with a herd of stampeding buffalo you might find you have much in common, beyond just the colour of your underwear.
Why should i make humour with people who are constantly catagorising people into general terms for the points of view they hold?
I dont even know anything about post modernism, i have not choosen this 'way of thinking', this is the way my nature is, it simply is the way i think.
I hope not to sound 'big headed' as that is not my intention, but i feel the way i think has no limitations, the only limitations are those that other people try to inforce by catagorisations and false ideas of things being absolute and unchangable.
If I may paraphrase a wise man from another thread - "That doesn't seem especially helpful, does it?"
Or do you hold different views at different times of day?
To imagine that our thinking, human thinking, the thinking of even a single human in all of human history and pre-history, could be without limitations strikes me as utterly bizarre. It flies in the face of evidence and logic.
Certain things are absolute - by definition. The example of absolute zero was raised earlier. If you understand what absolute zero is and how it is defined and what it means then you would understand that one cannot go to a lower temperature. I am praying that Mitchell does not come in here talking of the issue of electron spin, or some such thing, where semantically - as I seem to recall it - one could just nudge a tiny fraction below the defined level of absolute zero. But that is semantics and not physics.
And it seems, though we can be less certain about this, that certain things are unchangeable. The physical constants are a good example of these.
Thanks Ophiolite for wading in. You da mod. :-D
@daytonturner. I argued that absolutes are inevitable and desirable regarding people ethically. Like Dlrow, I don't know why the apparently malign charge of "post-modernism" applies to me here.
Yes i do hold different view at different times of day, my view of reality is not rigid and it changing as new information enters my experience.
You really believe just because our limited technology can no longer see the movement of object it is no longer in motion in some way?
You really believe that -459 degrees Fahrenheit is the lowest temperature of anything in the entire universe? Absolutley? Well feel free to limit your imaginations but i refuse to believe that as absolute until i have travelled the whole universe for something colder.
And your imagination has no limits.
Dlrow, please read up on exactly what absolute zero is before you start waving your hand around. Absolute zero does not mean there is no movement.
I hope you've washed your tongue Pong?
There is no such thing as absolute zero even at absolute zero.
One of the biggest arguments to come from this discovery is where to place the zero
Because Atoms never stop moving completely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
KALSTER, not a great deal of knowledge on this is needed to understand that this so called Absolute is not absolute.
Is left absolutely opposed to right?
Or up/down, in/out etc? Any of these "real"?
It is only non-absolute in that it has never (nor can ever) be reached. It is absolute, however, in that it can never be surpassed.
Why?
I'll re-provide the link Absum! did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero.
"Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder, and no heat energy remains in a substance. Absolute zero is the point at which molecules do not move (relative to the rest of the body) more than they are required to by a quantum mechanical effect called zero-point energy. It is a theoretical limit and cannot be achieved."
You can also take a look at this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_l...thermodynamics.
"The third law was developed by Walther Nernst, during the years 1906-1912, and is thus sometimes referred to as Nernst's theorem or Nernst's postulate. The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at zero is a well-defined constant. This is because a system at zero temperature exists in its ground state, so that its entropy is determined only by the degeneracy of the ground state; or, it states that "it is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealised, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations"".
It is theoretical.. Anything which is a theory and not an actual experienced event is not absolute.
Dlrow said:
Well, it has become obvious from your responses to the many posters here that you do not recognize or care about anything of value such as fact, logic or rationality.Come back and say something of value
Dlrow later said:
See, even there, you misunderstand that what I am categorizing is the thought processes you are using. Although, I suppose a person is closely linked to his thinking and thought expression. A person who expresses liberal thoughts is considered liberal while a person who expresses conservative thoughts is considered a conservative.Why should i make humour with people who are constantly catagorising people into general terms for the points of view they hold?
It is not necessary that the person "know" that his thoughts are liberal for others to be able to categorize that kind of thinking. He may not even know the difference between liberal and conservative. However, society has developed meanings to this words and people fall into those categories.
Whether you like it or not. Whether you understand it or not. Whether you agree or not, the thought and thinking processes you exhibit have been labeled by society as post modern.
Perhaps it would behoove you to do some study into the idea of modern v. post modern thinking. Not that I would expect you to agree, but here is a link to a discussion on the very topic and questions you raise. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5662
It has become obvious to me, as it has just about everyone else here, that discussion with you is useless since facts, logic and rationality have no place in your views of things.
Ah man. You're telling people what they think, how they think. Even telling the world that it agrees with you, about what certain enemies of yours think. Hello?
"Postmodernist" in the Conservative Christian lexicon functions as code for "unpinnable opponent". It's also handy tar because nobody's sure what the apparent slight really means so defense is equally uncertain. I looked into it just as you said Daytonturner.Would you please explain exactly how Pong (as charged) is a postmodernist? Or Dlrow (as charged), beyond "Are too!" as you've already argued.
Read what I writing not what you think I am writing. I stated, If you understand what absolute zero is and how it is defined and what it means then you would understand that one cannot go to a lower temperature. One cannot go to a lower temperature than absolute zero. The motion that is expressed by the concept of temperatureI has ceased at absolute zero. This does not mean all motion as ceased. Do you undestand the difference or are you terminally recalcitrant?
You should write immediately to your MP or congressman complaining about how the low temperature physicists have conned the government out of money to conduct experiments - practical experiments - when all they are realing doing is indulging in theory.It is theoretical.. Anything which is a theory and not an actual experienced event is not absolute.
I am forming the impression dlrow that either you have a limited grip on reality or you are a troll. I shall be watching your posts carefully for a while. Please prove me wrong on both counts.
I believe this is necessary to address Dlrow's "only a theory" rhetoric. Wikipedia sums up what a scientific theory is quite nicely:
I don't think Dlrow is a troll, but he definitely needs to learn about a couple of things before making "absolute" statements about it.
@Ophiolite. You're being unfair. "Negligible" is just fine for science... I think this is your practical understanding of absolute zero.... but Drlow's argument, in better keeping with the thread & subforum, is metaphysical.
Drlow is arguing, I believe, that no matter can be said to "stop" completely, not absolutely, relatively, neither in quanta nor aggregate. Because "just so" is only the limit of our own perception. When we sharpen our perception we find things we thought dead on to be a bit off. He's saying that "just so" never happens outside our judgment.
Sorry Drlow if I misrepresent.
We might reflect that ice and steel were considered absolutely frozen in themselves, until we learned these crystals do shift over time. A truly "perfect" crystal is possible though (we grow 'em in space!), just as a "perfect" chessboard can be chalked on any driveway. Whether or not the right angles are perfect depends on how we like to judge them that day. It seems only some absolutes are attainable.
Moderating is not about being fair - it is about being consistent.
Which has nothing to do with the definition of absolute zero.
His own declaration that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute statement - an irony he seems oblivious to. I can think of a two or three forums where he would have been tossed out on his neck for such wooly thinking. We are more tolerant here - not fairer, just more tolerant.
TANSTAAFL
The price you pay is to be hounded when your thinking is wooly.
Ophiolite it is your perception of my thinking that labels it 'wooly'... That is meaningless to me and the topic we are on.
We do not know enough about each others accumilated knowledge or experience specifically with the zero subject to consider it absolute and that is a debate of different substance.
Ophiolite - ''His own declaration that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute statement - an irony he seems oblivious to.''
It is true that it is a contradiction to say 'there are no absolutes' - only if the intent is that that statement is intended an absolute. I do not intend it as an absolute, if i did intend that statement as absolute i would write - 'it is absolute that there are no absolutes'.
I believe in an absolute but it is nothing physical as we know it.
If one discovers something which is perfect, complete and therfore never changing, what are we to call this if not the word 'absolute'?
Then does that not defy all other things named absolute prior to its discovery?
The word absolute is not a name for it, it is a description of it.. Only understood once one has experienced the true absolute, no other thing is worthy of being described as absolute.
This i believe is the true interpretation of the word 'absolute', it is yet to be discovered by most beings. But there are people who know of it. The one and only, unnameable, Absolute.
Perhaps that is how you would handle it. However, conventions of English usage and grammar are such that, as written by you, you made an absolute statement. You may not have intended it to be such, but that is what it was. That inability to use conventional English may be a great aid to a poet, but for a philosophical or scientific discussion it is simply being wooly.
Ah ok, so thats what wooly is, i think i kinda got it.. ha...... ha...... ha?
Sorry about that feathers. Now it has been corrected and understood as not an absolute statement (as that is the point of me writting it, to defy the term absolute) we can proceed unto the next level.
I see no further level to proceed to. You have posted a series of opinions. Several people have disagreed with you over these opinions, in some instances because they hold differing opinions, in other instances because your opinions were simply wrong. That is the end of the matter.
No absolute conclusion of the absolute
Yes, the conclusion is obvious.
There absolutely are absolutes and one such absolute is that Dlrow is absolutely wrong.
As not everyone agrees with you it is not the absolute.
This well is poisoned. Too bad. Give it up.
| « Mrs. God says God is a one woman God. No Mary thank you. | The fight against religion » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
