|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any such thing as an absolute? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
I can see the distinction. My peeve is that fundamentalists have abused the concept of absolutes so far that I'd like to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction by using a very strict definition of absolute.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
It needs to be 0. Ok.
So 9/9 ≠ 1? 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.
I think therefore I am? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Deduction requires understanding the entire system. So we can have bubbles of absolute certainty but they pop if we try to extend them too far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
But I like my absolutes to be absolute. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I'm not seeing a problem. A finitely small fraction is not exactly equal to zero, no matter how small it might be. And surely a real absolute requires exact equality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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. 1/9 = 0.111111...3/9 = 0.33333..... 7/9 = .7777.... 9/9 = 0.9999...... Its a quirk of our numbering system that there are multiple ways of representing numbers.
0.99999~ = 1 ? is still open if you want to get to grips with the hows and whys!
How can you speak with such conviction about the need for doubt? I'm a militant agnostic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I'm a militant agnostic! --- 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Doubt is asymptotic to the vanishing point.
I say that doubt should have a vanishing point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
1.61803 writes: A statement can not be true in one reality and false in another. Yes, it can.
Unless you can show me the maths or proofs that make this false. Okay. He simply defines himself to be correct right here:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes: Let us define an objective reality as a collection of statements which are true in that reality. 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:
Given any collection of more than one such statements, you could easily construct another such collection by leaving out one of those statements. Let us ignore such subset realities, and consider only maximal ones, that contain all the true statements they can contain, and are not subsets of any other reality. For if the only way to come up with different realities is by subsetting, then there must be one ultimately maximal reality that contains all the others, and the others are simply incomplete versions of this reality. Let me show you why this is absurd: Example:
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:
A statement can not be true in one reality and false in another. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes: Are we not certain that the force of gravity is universal? 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...
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? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes: So we can have bubbles of absolute certainty but they pop if we try to extend them too far. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Stile.
People like "what if's" So you believe as you like. As for me I will go with whatCarl Sagen said. The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be " Kind regards,"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
1.61803 writes: So you believe as you like. As for me I will go with whatCarl Sagen said. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The problem is that "a collection of statements" does not create a reality in any way. No but if they are correct then they accurately reflect the reality. It is the reality that makes them correct or not.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
What if we did, actually, believe that our understanding was "universal?" Then... we find a non-universal observation. Now what? 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024