Is there any such thing as an absolute?

I think the answer is conditional. YES - If we understand a system completely, then we can have absolutes within that system.Example: Math
-if we define the numbers 1 to 10 as used in a base 10 real number system
-and define addition and equality
-then we can say that 2 + 3 = 5 and that this is absolutely true within the system we have definedExample: Blizzard Creating World of Warcraft
-if Blizzard creates a video game
-and Blizzard defines all the laws within that game through coding the engine that drives the game
-then Blizzard can say that a level 70 character is more powerful than a level 3 character and that this is absolutely true within the game Blizzard createdNO - If we do not understand a system completely or cannot tell whether or not we understand a system completely, then we cannot have absolutes within that system.Example: Reality
-we do not know how reality was created
-we do not know the future of reality
-we do not know if our objective observations of reality are "correct for now" vs. "correct forever"
-we do not know if our objective observations of reality are "close enough to reality for our usage" vs. "exact representations of reality for all usages"Without knowing these factors, we have no "meter stick of reality" with which to measure our results against to verify if they actually are exact representations or not.Example: Casually Playing World of Warcraft
-in just running around World of Warcraft... I don't specifically know whether or not a level 3 character is more powerful than a level 70 character.
-however, by learning the system... such a thing can become obvious to me
-but, without actually looking at the source code I would never know "absolutely" whether or not such a thing is actually true for all level 3 characters and all level 70 characters (maybe there's some equipment or boosters I just don't know about that could make a level 3 character more powerful)The point is that there's a difference between Blizzard defining all the rules in World of Warcraft and us living in reality where we don't know the definitions for all the rules (or even if such definitions actually exist).We identify this difference by saying we know how World of Warcraft works absolutely because we can look at the code that powers it's engine.
We cannot know how reality works absolutely because we don't even know if there is a "code" that powers it's engine. I agree with your sentiment here when talking about every day normal life.
However, your sentiment is incorrect when strictly talking about things being "absolute."

quote:

---

Absolute
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

---

If there's a non-zero chance, then it's not "total" and it's not "absolute."You can dismiss it as much as you like... or use the word absolute to represent these things in every day normal life (like everyone does).
But... if you want to get specific and ask if we actually can or can't know anything "without a non-zero chance against it" about reality... then the answer is "no." This is true if you want to use the strict definition of the word "absolute" or if you'd like to simply talk about the actual idea that the strict definition represents.Example:In World of Warcraft there is a "total" absolute 0% chance that you can walk through walls. (Yes... yes... not those walls or that bug... we're just talking about an example).
We know this absolutely because we can look at the source code and verify that this is true.In reality we think there is a non-zero chance that you can walk through walls because our current understanding of the universe (quantum mechanics) leads us to believe that this number exists.
But... is there actually a non-zero chance?
We don't know.
Maybe our current understanding of quantum mechanics is not "totally" accurate of reality.
Add in that it also seems like we will never know whether or not any future understanding of the universe is, indeed, "totally" accurate of reality... and you can see how this cannot be strictly described as "absolute."This issues isn't about whether or not the "non-zero" chance exists... the issue is about whether or not our calculations lead us to the correct number that exactly represents reality.
-maybe there is, actually, a 0% chance that you can walk through walls (and our current understanding is just a bit off).
-maybe there is, actually, a non-zero chance that you can walk through walls... but it's not the same non-zero chance that our current calculations would result in (again... because our current understanding may be just a bit off).Who knows? Maybe one day we will learn "the coding of the engine for reality" and we will then be able to compare our results to that. But that's certainly not today... so, today, we cannot say we know anything about reality "absolutely." Simply because we do not know the entire system.

Not confusing... ignoring. My message was already so long...
But, yes... you're right. I appreciate your additional take on the issue. And yeah, I agree that it's something that should also be kept in mind. I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're trying to get at here.
I think I agree with this statement, and it's part of what I was attempting to say as well... "we have no meter stick of reality in order to measure our results against."But then this part: I don't understand the issue here.
Why does 2 + 2 always equal 4?
Because we defined the numbers and addition and equality to make that so.
For simplicitiy's sake... it's a circular system we created.We use it because it works... it works because we defined it to be useful...The "WHY?" can always be traced back to first principles... the original axioms (definitions) of "Math". Real numbers, addition, equality...
Why did we choose those definitions? ---this question doesn't make a difference as to how the system works. The system works if you follow the definitions.Like this simple logic example:All hats are green.
Larry has a hat.
Therefore, Larry's hat is green.This will always be absolutely logically valid because I simply defined it to be so.
Why did I define it to be so? Who cares? Maybe I don't like Larry and think he should have a silly hat. It doesn't matter... Within the system it is still absolutely logically valid...Now, with math... maybe the definitions were slightly different a long, long time ago.
Then, reality made it obvious that certain other definitions would work better... so we changed the definitions.
Then, reality made it obvious that additional definitions for additional structures would also be helpful... so we added some definitions.
...even if this sort of thing happened, the reasons why the definitions exist are irrelevant to how the definitions control the system. The definitions absolutely control the system because that's specifically what they are defined to do.Attempting to count "units" (of anything...) obviously leads to defining "numbers."
Attempting to do inventory with these numbers of things obviously leads to addition and subtraction.
Attempting to do lots of inventory obviously leads to multiplication and division.
...we may get our motivation for defining math from reality. But once those definitions are in place, it doesn't matter why they were put there.2 + 2 = 4 simply because it is defined to be such.
2 + 2 does not = 5 simply because the definitions absolutely declare that this is wrong."Why is math useful?" Is a very interesting question... but it's answer (or possible lack thereof) has no bearing on the absolute-ness of the definitions when working within the system. I think so, yes.
Like my simple Larry example.Perhaps complicated examples like World of Warcraft have a bit "too much code" for any single person to ever understand the entire system completely... I would concede that point.But I do think simple things like the conclusion of my Larry example can be known absolutely from it's given premise.
What if the rules of logic somehow change in the future?
---this would not affect the rules of logic that were used for my Larry example. And, if we use the rules as defined for the Larry example, then the conclusion will always be the same. Even if "other rules" are available as an option. I like this analogy too.
This is my point though... my Larry example (obviously) is not "reality."
It's something I defined into existence. Therefore... no shadow.

Maybe I flip in my head about whether or not herebedragons is correct on this point.I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong...) herebedragons would agree with you and say "Yes, there definitely, absolutely is a state of the universe... however, whether or not we can ever know this state is unknown."But... I'm not so sure.We perceive so little, it's difficult (and a bit arrogant?) to say "Yeah... this is always true about reality" for pretty much anything.
The thing is... we know that we perceive little.Example:
We only perceive a part of the visible spectrum, we can detect more. Is there even more that we cannot detect with current technology/knowledge? If we find more, is there more beyond that? Can we ever know the answer to that question?Example: There either is, or is not, a God. Perhaps we will never be able to tell... but that state of the universe has an answer.
Does it?Maybe the question is not binary and we just think it is because of our limited knowledge so far. How could we ever know what's possible in reality without knowing all of reality?That the question is binary and that binary questions always have an answer one way or the other... is a concept that we have defined. Perhaps that definition is wrong for some aspect of reality we are unaware of.Or... maybe I'm philosophizing myself into circles and talking nonsense? I dunno...I can, however, answer this question: Infinite.I understand that the answer is unsatisfying, impractical and sounds kinda douchy. But, it is the answer, regardless of our feelings towards it. Our limitations can cause issues for us... but the answer to this question does not care about our limitations. I agree.
But "real" is not the same as "absolute." Do our observations define reality? Or does reality simply exist?We have never observed a solid object passing through another solid object.
Does this mean it's impossible?
Or can it happen and we just have never observed it?
Our current, best calculations tell us that it is possible. Do we trust those calculations are an absolutely correct reflection of reality? Is there anything else to base our answer on?We have never observed a stash of gold on the moon.
Does this mean it's impossible?
Or can it happen and we just have never observed it?...it seems as though reality does indeed "simply exist." And our observations do not define it.Therefore... the fact that we have never observed any solid object passing through another has no bearing on reality. Especially considering that our calculations say it is so rare that our number of current observations for the phenomenal don't add up to anything that would make it seem strange that we haven't observed it yet... Nope.
Any predictions based on repetition, verification and consensus rely on induction. It may very well be "the best that's ever worked" for us so far... but, unfortunately, induction is not capable of ever "bringing the chances down to zero" for anything at all.
Only deduction can do that.Deduction requires understanding the entire system.Therefore, in order to get what you want (a deductive conclusion about reality) you need to understand all of reality.
We can't do this today.
We may not be able to do this.In fact... all of our repetition, verification and consensus of this issue leads us to an inductive prediction that we will never be able to do this.But, we can eat crispy crunch blizzards from Dairy Queen... so it's not all bad news

You are correct.What I should have said was:2 + 2 = 4 because we can derive it from the definitions we've created for math.The point is that we can fully check it ("absolutely")... and the last point of the "checking" is getting back to the original definitions (laws or first principles or whatever...).

Can you show that this is necessarily true? I agree that it certainly seems this way to us, though...

They close for winter???!!
Ballsacks!Year-round DQ in Ontario. I find it absolutely keeps the winter blues away Edited by Stile, : Absolutely on topic.

Yes, it can. Okay.He simply defines himself to be correct right here: The problem is that "a collection of statements" does not create a reality in any way. I can put together a collection of statements anytime I'd like... it doesn't make a reality. It makes a stack of paper and ink within this reality.The definition of an "objective reality" must include some way to exist within that space.
Or, to say it another way... if nothing exists there, then it's not a "reality" at all. It's just a stack of paper and ink.And then he goes on to give a seemingly-offhand, reasonable remark. But, actually, it simply confirms his method of defining himself into being correct: Let me show you why this is absurd:Example:

• we have two realities, physics are exactly the same
• but there's one very large difference in the development of people:
• Reality 1 is like our reality... WWII happened.
• Reality 2 is different... WWII never happened. People never got scared of eugenics and as a result there's an intelligent, restricted eugenics method going on to this day across the world which is creating some very smart people who have solved the energy crisis. (Just take my word for it.. )

Obviously, the two realities are different.But, according to Lawrence... we do not have two different realities. We have one because there is one set of statements describing them. (The bulleted list above). Does that actually make sense to you? Do you think this is an honest approach to what people are attempting to explain when they talk about "different realities?"In a kind of "uber-overarching" sense... this is strictly true. That is, you could say that "reality" simply includes both worlds. Even though there is no way to cross between them. It's a bit strange to say such a thing... it's not what we really mean when we use the term "reality" to describe a different universe. But, this is the way Lawrence has defined the term.Therefore: Is absolutely true, if you accept Lawrence's definitions and do away with the idea of "an alternate reality" whatsoever (even when one is staring you in the face...).
And I agree with him. If you ignore the issue altogether... then there's no differences to speak of. Kind of like when people say "if magic were a part of this world... then it would be natural because everything that is a part of this world is natural!." In one sense of the terms... it makes sense. But in practical usage of the terms... it's just a silly, immature thing to say that serves nothing but to re-define what the word "magic" actually describes. Equivalently... Lawrence has done nothing but to redefine what the term "reality" means such as to ignore the context that makes such a question interesting in the first place.So, if you'd like to actually consider the question as honestly intended... then Lawrence is a bit of a dink and this statement is absolutely false For me, if I ever become aware of two distinct realities with distinct properties... it would only feel honest to describe them as unique concepts. If the word "realities" is too much for people like Lawrence... I don't have an issue with using another word ("dimensions?" or maybe "existences?"). But to define a term that specifically ignores the concept... and then to say that this "proves" the concept cannot exist... well, that's just childish. And easily shown to be wrong.

No, we are not.We make amazing systems and complex projects that entirely depend on this being universal... but just because all our stuff works right now doesn't mean it's going to work forever. Also, just because all our stuff works at our current location in time and space... doesn't mean it's going to work for all locations in time and space.But, we have great reason to think it's universal.
And we'll keep acting as if it's universal until it's shown to us that it isn't (if that ever happens).If it did happen... if some observation was discovered that showed the force of gravity was not universal... what do you think would happen?This is what I would see happening:
-at first, everyone would think it was an equipment or calculation error
-as the non-universal observation is replicated and verified by other teams and other equipment over and over... people would start to change their thinking
-eventually (if we have the time and resources), the non-universal observation will be understood and our ideas on "the universal force of gravity" would be updated and we would have a brand new concept that would then be "universal" as far as it would explain all observations we've ever obtained.I think this is what would happen because this is what has happened as we've progressed through our understanding of the "universal force of gravity."First it was Newton's laws. They were thought to be "universal" until...
Then it was Einstein's relativity. That was thought to be "universal" until...
Then it incorporated a bunch of quantum observations.Are you sure there's nothing left to discover about gravity?What if we did, actually, believe that our understanding was "universal?"
Then... we find a non-universal observation.
Now what?Do we disregard the evidence?
Do we ignore objective observations because "we already know the universal force of gravity!"
The only thing such a stance can do is stand in the way of progress if progress is ever required.If we don't take such a stance.. what are we missing? I'll give you a nice ribbon if that's what you're after... No, of course not.But, in line with this question... imagining that we'll never learn anything more about gravity is also not a valid reason to think that our current understanding is "universal" or "absolute."

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. "That we can know about," anyway.Statements about ideas/concepts we've created ourselves is one thing.
Statements about ideas/concepts we did not create (like reality... or someone else's idea...) is another thing.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I believe other realities exist.
If you'd like to know what I believe... I agree pretty much with Carl Sagen as well. Although I wouldn't quite be so absolute about it...But my personal beliefs don't make a difference about whether or not Lawrence's argument is sound. Such a thing must stand on its own.

I would say they are a part of this reality, yes. Right. I don't dispute this.
You've adopted terms (as I suggested) that makes this clear. You have "one reality" and "the possibility of multiple universes within that reality." Right?Lawrence explains it like this: If you have "the possibility of multiple realities" then they are all part of "one reality" and so, therefore... there is only one reality.Which is kind of saying the same thing... just a bit more confusing as it doesn't make the demarcation clear.Now... getting back to what I was talking about: As I talked about in Message 39 this is only a matter of definitions.Let's assume we have a reality with multiple universes.If we use your clear definitions... it's obvious that we have "one reality," but we could have a statement be true in one universe that is not true in another.
(I have no issues with this).If we use Lawrence's definitions... then you cannot explain this phenomenon. We would have one reality. But we would have an aspect of reality (one universe) where something is true... and another aspect of reality (another universe) where the same thing is false...
But, again according to Lawrence, an objective reality is a collection of statements which are true in that reality. So how can something be both true and false within Lawrence's "reality?"So... the only way 1.61803's quote that "A statement can not be true in one reality and false in another" is valid... is if you use your clear definitions of "reality" and "other universe."
That is... you're not having differences between realities (there's only 1 by definition)... you're just having differences between "other universes."
I didn't know (and, actually, still don't know...) if this is what he was intending.Because... by definitions that I'm used to... "other universe" is the same thing as "other reality"... and hence my confusion with the original statement.It's the overall concept that's important... not what we're naming each aspect.
For all I care, we could just as easily say there is only "one existence" and there's a possibility of "multiple realities" within that existence..

Well, yes. And I do agree with this point.
Like I said... I think it's a definitional problem. I explained it some more in my latest post to ProtoTypical in Message 47.In a nutshell, I seem to think that "different realities" and "parallel universes" are the same concept.Therefore... if you're trying to infer that "there is only one reality... in which there may be parallel universes that may each have their own true/false statements..." then I don't have an issue, and I simply misunderstood what you were trying to convey.But, if you're trying to infer that "parallel universes cannot have their own true/false statements that differ from each other..."
Then I take issue (and this is the concept to which I thought you were originally referring).

Cool. Maybe I'll start to believe in it myself
(I tend to pick a side that I think might be true... and then try to defend it and see how it goes from there...) I don't know.What do we mean by "known absolutely?" Let's say we mean something like a measurement:
Example: Abraham Lincoln's hat was 15" high (I just made that up, but let's roll with it...).Well, was it 15" high? Or 15.1"? 15.00000001? 14.9999999999999999999999998"?
Can we ever reach an "absolute accuracy?"Of course we can reach a "good enough" value. But "good enough" isn't the same as "absolute."Or maybe something more conceptual:
Example: Finding dinosaur bones means that dinosaurs lived in the past.Hmmmmm... I'm having a hard time finding something that's "not absolute" about that.
I guess there's always the cop-out: How do we know everything isn't an elaborate hoax? Last Thursdayism?
Feels pretty cheap to me. But is "any doubt at all" enough to not be "absolute?"Like Paul K says... I like my absolutes to be absolute? I suppose it's time for the why question: Why does it matter if anything is "absolute" or not?What's the difference between us knowing "absolutely" that dinosaurs existed vs. leaving some ridiculously-small doubt for Last Thursdayism?
What's the difference if Abe's hat is 14.9999999999999999999999998" or 15"?Or are we just discussing to see where it leads?
Is either mind-set dangerous?I would guess that an "absolute" mind-set would have a more difficult time being convinced of new evidence...
I would also suggest that "absolute" mind-sets seem to form key figures in religions as well (Absolutely-powerful/beneficial/knowing Gods...)To me... I don't see much in the way of advantages in saying something is "absolute" or not.
If "close enough" really is "close enough..." then who cares?I kind of think of it like the measurement thing... sure, when we cut a 2 x 4 we can measure 8'2".
And once it's cut... it's cut.
However... this is really only "close enough."
If you got right down to it with a microscopic measuring device at some point you would see the actual molecules/atoms vibrating around near the edges. This means there isn't an "absolute value" of the length in any way. It's always a varying, changing value... even after it's cut!. It just depends where your "enough" is for "close enough."What if all of reality is like this on some level? What if every property of every observation (on some fundamental minute scale...) is just vibrating around a few states? Would it be better to embrace the fuzziness of reality? Or would it be better to try and force our "good enough" observations into "absolutes?"I do suppose "absolutes" would be a lot easier and cleaner. That's something to aim for, maybe?

Exactly.If we accept the assumptions (work within "the system" we've defined with assumptions) then we can have absolutes within that system. We just have to remember that they depend upon certain assumptions.The other point to remember is that all observations of reality require some sort of assumption. Either the assumption that "all hats are green" (or some other, more repeatable observation like "the force of gravity comes from objects with mass.")... or the assumption that "an objective reality exists." They are assumptions and we need to remember that any "absolutes" we derive within our system (our "ideas/concepts about reality") rely on these assumptions. They may very well be assumptions that have never, ever been shown to be false... but our currently limited resources do not allow us yet to jump from "never, ever been shown to be false" to "absolutely, always true." Of course not. That's how we know that it's not absolute when working "outside" of the system (taking observations from reality... some hats are actually red).
However, if we work "within" the system... taking our knowledge from the data provided by the example itself (ie. "All hats are green"). Then we certainly can have "absolutes."
For a (horrible) example: Say, locking a man in a single room his entire life where there are 2 hats and they are both green.The point was to show how we can create absolute certainty by creating an entire scenario by defining it into existence.For (possibly) a less confusing example:
Let's say I imagine a story. For the sake of brevity let's assume I'm a horrible plagiarist and created the story of the three little pigs.
I can absolutely say that there are 3 pigs in my story.
Because I created the story, I defined it, and I made the rules.
This says nothing about reality. But within the system I created (the system I "defined")... there are absolutes.Extending this example... as long as we accept the assumptions about reality to create a defined system... then we can claim absolutes within that system.
Whether or not that system is 'absolutely true about reality' will entirely depend on those assumptions being true to reality or not (possibly something we can never know).But "absolutely true within reality" isn't the same as "absolutely true within the story Stile created."The question was simply "Is there any such thing as an absolute."
This doesn't imply within reality so I made the clarification.If the point is that something must be absolute "within everything" in order to actually be absolute... then it is trivially easy to show that this is impossible. For anything that you can claim to be absolute "within reality" I can simply make something up that is the opposite "within Stile's imagination" and therefore it isn't absolute "within everything."Therefore... there are classifications."Systems we define" is a classification where we can know if anything is absolute or not as we can refer to the definitions. If the definitions are clear enough, and our subject is also clear enough... then we can identify certain absolutes within the system.
"Reality" is a classification where we cannot know if anything can be absolute or not as we are not currently privy to the definitions for reality.We can, however, build our own "systems we define" about reality (like objective science) and then make absolute statements within those systems... but we can never make the jump that these observations are "absolute representations of reality" without knowing the exact definitions for reality.

I totally agree.Within "the system of measurements" that we have defined... we have defined an "absolute" (theoretical) standard for the meter.
Therefore... as long as we're working within the system we can compare things to this absolute value.Of course, because atoms and moleclues vibrate... we'll never actually have anything that is "absolutely" 1 meter (or any specific length).
At some minute level... it will be constantly varying it's length between so many pico-meters and so many other pico-meters.This means nothing when we cut a 7-foot long piece of lumber to build a house.
It does, however, mean quite a bit when we try to fit so many transistors into a computer chip. At some point, the transistors get so small that they no longer hold their "transistor" shape... and stop functioning as desired. This isn't an issue with being able to cut them to the size we need... this is an issue with our assumption that "a size" can actually exist within reality in the first place. It can't. Even the 7-foot long piece of lumber is varying it's "size" on the level of pico-meters. This is just irrelevant when building a house.Within the system (building a house)... the absolutes can be used to compare to the standard.
Outside the system (building a transistor)... the absolutes are no longer valid. Therefore... are they not "absolutes" then? The answer is that they were never absolutes "for reality." But they certainly are absolutes within the system (example: building a house). It can, yes. But it includes the same trouble. If we understand the definitions for the system and the definitions of the subject well enough... then we can make absolute statements. If we do not... then we cannot. If we want to be able to compare our answers... then yes, we do. Yes, we can. We just cannot compare our answers unless we agree to a single standard.
Same with the measuring tape.Your 13" hat-measurement will work fine for you putting together your own replica of Lincoln's hat (assuming your system is linear-enough... )My 16" hat-mearsurement will work fine for me putting together my own replica of Lincoln's hat.But, obviously... we will have much confusion when talking to each other because our standards are different.
Therefore... we created "an arbitrary definition" for standard measurement... the meter.This doesn't force "the meter" to become some sort of absolute item existing in reality. It simply provides us with a theoretical standard from which we can make absolute comparisons as long as we work within that system.So... same with morality.Your subjective answers will work fine for you in your system.
My subjective answers will work fine for me in my system.But... if we want to compare our answers... we'll have to agree to some "arbitrary definition" for standard measurement.If we do find some standard to agree upon. This doesn't force that standard to become some absolute standard of morality according to reality. It simply provides us with a theoretical standard from which we can make absolute comparisons as long as we work within that system. Maybe. Can we ever know it? I don't think so.Just like the meter? The meter doesn't "apply to all humans regardless of what you or I think." The only reason the meter applies to us is precisely because "you and I" have decided to think that it applies to us! Humans invented "the meter" as much as they invented "the inch." The two standards (as you stated in your first sentence...) were defined arbitrarily. The world has just adopted the meter as a universal standard in order to make universal comparisons much easier. There's nothing in reality that says "a meter exists and it is this long!" It is only humans who defined that a meter exists... and they defined how long it is.Is there some measurement of length that applies to all humans regardless of what you or I think?Maybe. Can we ever know it? I don't think so.
But... I can absolutely tell you that "the meter" is not a measurement of length that applies to all humans regardless of what you or I think!
"The meter" only applies to those humans who think of it! This is very true.It is true for morality. (Example: does The Bible define morality? Or do people get to say what's hurting them vs. helping them?)
And it is true for "the meter." (Example: is "the meter" THE right standard? Or "the inch?") Very true again.
But don't worry... nobody knows
Or, at least... nobody's been able to show that they know...
For morality, and for "the meter." Correct again.
"Functional" absolutes is a very good term, and I completely agree with your definition. Absolutely. We have been taught (by evolution? socially? culture?... doesn't matter) that "being wrong" is a negative thing. Therefore, many people have a very hard time simply admitting they can be wrong. Even though everyone knows that "we're all human" and "humans are quite capable of being wrong."Science (and objectivity) change their stance when new information comes along. There's nothing positive or negative about it... it's just how it works. This is much more healthy for a mind that craves honesty. The problem is that we don't know the definitions for reality. Therefore... we cannot know if there is a standard for reality.
Then... people want to live their lives according to standards... and they want to feel secure that these standards are "valid."So... we have Grug with standard A and Lug with standard B.
Grug doesn't like that Lug does things differently... so he kills him. Problem solved. Everything is back to standard A.We have evolved to the point to understand that this is wrong.
We have not yet evolved to the point to understand that standard A and standard B are both not absolutes.So... our desire to "kill Lug" (remove standard B) remains while our ability to actually do so is heavily restricted.We have options: "Grow a set" and recognize that our standard A may not be as "absolute" as we originally thought... or fight the system and get a long as best we can.Your results may vary