Is there any such thing as an absolute?

In the thread "If God ever stopped intervening in nature" the topic has drifted into a discussion about the existence of absolute truths. I am not sure if it has any legs but I am interested and think that the topic is worthy of it's own thread.So the question is 'Is there any such thing as an absolute?'Definition

quote:

---

Absolute
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
2. a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

---

I see a bit of a problem with this as it seems to me that the way in which we know things is by relating them to other things. The act of knowing is a process of categorizing sensory input into a hierarchy of relationships. Consciousness itself is the state of being aware of the differences between entities. So it may be that this definition is not the right one as it is somewhat self defeating. I suspect that it is a failure of language because I can hold the concept in my mind but it breaks down when I try to verbalize it. The definition is open for debate.As a starting point I would like to dispute the idea that imagining a reality that is in opposition to what we observe is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe. From Message 109If .9999...9 is equal to 1 then non-zero chances can largely be dismissed. The same way that I can dismiss the non-zero possibility that I can walk through a wall. In the real world the possibility that I can walk through a wall is zero. I know this.P.S. I am only connected occasionally so expect long delays from me.

Lots of good answers here and much food for thought.The best reduction that I can manage this morning is to ask if you all agree that there is, in fact, an absolute state of the universe? That there is such a thing as an absolute truth about the way that things are or the way that the universe works? It seems like a silly question and that the answer is of course there is. The question about whether or not we can know it is a separate question. How many times do I have to bounce off the wall before I can know that I will not be going through it? I mean I will not live long enough to bounce off the wall enough times before I encounter the one time that I actually go through it. It seems to me that the fact is that the real possibility of me going through the wall is zero. I appreciate Paulk's distinction between practical and absolute certainty but with hypothetical possibilities on the one side and the span of time on the other, how many 'solid' objects have ever passed through another 'solid' object?The fact that my (our) cognition is not perfect is not lost on me. However, repetition and verification and consensus serve to bring the chances of being wrong down. Can they not bring them down to zero?I think that Straggler asks a good question. What other way than by definition is there to know that something is true? How can we know anything without using definitions?

I think HBD has the answer to that. I am certain that no one can tell me exactly how many suns there are in the milky way but I am equally certain that there is an absolutely correct answer to that question.I see that this is different from the question about universal absolutes where the full set cannot be observed or perhaps even imagined.

A poor example I guess because I can see people actually winning the lottery but I think that I get your point.If the real (absolute?) probability is very nearly zero that I can walk through a wall given an eternity's worth of attempts what is the probability that I can do it in a lifetime? If .999... is equal to 1 then how small does that probability have to be in order for it to be equal to zero?I think RAZD gives a good explanation of why .999... = 1 but at the same time I think that only 1=1. I want to say that this is a good example of absolute knowledge that will never change. A tautology? Perhaps but again what else is there? The tiniest fraction of all such interactions but the sum total of all observations. Are we not certain that you don't have to actually witness the event to know what is going to or did happen? I see the need to leave a big place for doubt but I reject the idea that we can be certain of nothing. I suspect that it is a question of how far our absolute certainty can reach. Sort of like peering through the fog. So I would say that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge but that it only extends so far.Are you not absolutely certain of anything whatsoever?

You make some excellent points Stile and a pleasure to read and consider. Are we not certain that the force of gravity is universal? Is imagining some situation where the force of gravity has no presence really a valid objection to the idea that gravity is a universal force?

Ok. Apparently, math is not my strong suit. I am not sure where the discrepancy comes from but the decimal equivalents of 1/3 x 3 and 9/9 appear to be different. Anyway. He asks.It seems to me that conflicting truths and paradoxes are like the seams of reality and deserve close investigation. How can you speak with such conviction about the need for doubt?

So we can have bubbles of absolute certainty but they pop if we try to extend them too far.

I am just trying to investigate the nature of an absolute. It occurs to me that there is such a thing but that it is not what it appears to be or that our concept of it is off.

---Lets not mistake my ignorance as being representative of the general state of knowledge.Accepting the premise that we can actually know stuff, how would you make the case that we are not absolutely certain that the sun is fusing hydrogen into heavier elements?Is the Omphalos hypothesis or last thusdayism reason enough to say that we can not be certain about anything? Is it just another quirk of math that the possibility that this type of argument is correct is greater than zero?I say that doubt should have a vanishing point.

No but if they are correct then they accurately reflect the reality. It is the reality that makes them correct or not. Are the galaxies that are beyond our ability to detect or get to not a part of this reality? We know that they are there by inference. So if we can infer that there are other universes then they become a part of our reality.

We fall on our swords in abject disgrace or we mumble something and carry on as if it never happened and we were right all along. Seriously though, I see that after you have corrected yourself so many times that it just becomes embarrassing and you end up saying that you are not really sure of anything. I think that this is a bit of a cop out and that there are some things that we should be sure of.I think you make a really good point about understanding the whole system. What about historical truths? Can they not be known absolutely?

Enquiring minds want to know ...or at least look. I believe that the truth shall set us free. I believe that this is an absolute truth. That knowing what is true is better than not knowing.

I don't see a problem with saying, given what we know today, this is absolutely the case.Do you think that logic can be absolute? Can we not say that, given such and such inputs, our logical deductions can be absolutely true? I see that this comes back to knowing all of the inputs but is the process absolutely reliable? Is our logic not capable of revealing the truth? It seems to me that we all think that it is.

I would say that knowing any truth allows you to be freer than you would be if you did not know it. I suppose that absolute freedom would equate to god.

There is no question that we may wish that the truth were sometimes different but this is separate from wanting to know what the truth is. I have heard that if ignorance is bliss then it is foolish to be wise but I don't buy it. We are not talking about a Johnny Neumonic overload where your nose starts bleeding and your brains turn to mush. We are talking about truths that we can arrive at and comprehend.