John Page

Here is where we are parting ways, I suspect. Let me offer a couple of definitions:

From the Oxford Companion to PhilosophyFrom the OEDComment: Narrowing down an "absolute" to a single point in time defies the definition of absolute. I'm also given to understand from physicists that the idea of a "single point' is somewhat questionable given quantum theory. I wish I could remember the guy's name but one physicist said "we may have to face up to the fact that the universe is inherently lumpy".

If you have a different conception of absolute, as an open minded skeptic I'd love to hear it.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John asked:
How do you know the rock is there when you're not observing it? The rock may or may not be there.

John, do you mean that someone might move the rock when I'm not looking?

Or, do you mean that the rock might not exist--anywhere--unless I (or some other conscious being or group of the same) am/are observing it?

Keith.

long winded fool

Narrowing down an "absolute" to a single point in time defies the definition of absolute. I'm also given to understand from physicists that the idea of a "single point' is somewhat questionable given quantum theory. I wish I could remember the guy's name but one physicist said "we may have to face up to the fact that the universe is inherently lumpy".

I don't think so. Does narrowing "absolute" down to any mathematical value defy the definition of absolute? How can "absolute authority" be a relevant example of an absolute, included as it were in the very definition of absolute, if absolute must always necessarily encompass all of time and space? A thing in a certain time at a certain place can exist absolutely. It can also exist relatively, but absolute material existence is a more rational assumption than relative material existence. (If it is there for me to perceive, it can be assumed to be equally perceivable by anything capable of that same kind of perception.) Absolute does not necessarily preclude time and space, and as such doesn't necessarily preclude mortality. I can be absolutely healthy and then get hit by a car and be killed. (At which point I will be absolutely unhealthy.)

Would you say that the existence of matter/energy falls under the category of absolute as you interpret it if matter/energy exists in all space and has no beginning and no end, as is in accordance with the laws of thermal dynamics? If so, how is this logically any different than saying anything else is absolute? If not, then you are not following your own interpretation of the definition of absolute. You interpret the word "absolute" as a meaningless notion, yet material reality is necessarily absolute according to the definition you provided. It must exist independently of everything esle! (Assuming material reality is equivalent to the space-time continuum.)

I think expecting "absolute truth" to provide a singular, tangible definition for all events that have ever occured and will ever occur in all places is an unreasonable expectation for any non-omniscient being. All the events in the universe will still occur without abandoning the idea of absolute truth and assuming relative truth solely because we can't grasp the complete picture. They will also occur if we do embrace relativism, of course, but we will be far less successful in predicting and understanding said events if we start from the assumption that they are entirely relative to individual interpretation.

long winded fool

I don't think you necessarily must be able to construct a mental picture of something in order to claim it as being the case. No scientist can construct a mental picture of the state of things prior to the big bang, yet despite this seemingly vital missing foundation, the big bang is still the widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe.

That being said, it seems that a universe without consciousness (Let's say, "this" universe without consciousness) would be a universe without any color, energy, matter, or laws, but would still contain the things which these ideas refer to. Impossible to visualize, yet still logical to assume if material reality must exist before it is perceived.

mhc

But of course they do--all the time. We here about a universe the size of a tennis ball, etc. Very visual.
However, a "picture" isn't necessary. But *some* mental model is. That model may be mathematical, but it is still a postulate of the way things are.


I don't want to say "this " or "that" universe. There can only be one universe, as I use the word. It is everything that is, regarded as a whole.
I contend that in order to make a claim about anything of which we do not have immediate sense data requires that we are able to imagine it. Even those who work in purely abstract calculus must be able to imagine a correlate to their calculations if they are to use them to make any claim about the way things are.
2+2=4 is meaningless squiggles on paper unless we are able to imagine two *somethings*.

Imagine a zero-consciousness universe.
The planets are spinning around, there are spiral galaxies and suns and novas and what-not, but no consciousness anywhere.
--Wait, you're not playing fair....this is a universe with NO consciousness, not a universe with one consciousness.
So subtract your consciousness from it. This means you must subtract all idea and perception of it. There is nothing to perceive. It disappears, and you are right back here.

This has me puzzled.

John Page

Keith:

Yes - something may have happened to the rock while you're not observing it.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John, cheers right back at ya!

Keith.

John Page

Depends on the definition of "absolute" that we use, and which I'm trying to clarify for the purposes of this debate.
I don't think anyone has found a way to test "in all space". You will find that 1LT and 2LT are contradictory when considering the "whole" universe. One proposes conservation of energy while the other denies a perpetual motion machine.
Assuming you are not an omniscient being the above seems to be game set and match for relativism.
LOL. The universe will likely continue whether we think of it in relativistic or absolute terms. Nevertheless, the conception that you have of the universe is realtive to the state of your mind....

Cheers, John

mhc

Are there any neccessary relationships in relativism?
It doesn't seem there could be.
A necessary relationship introduces an unchaging certainty in the universe.
Does relativism admit absolutes?
a priori knowledge?
admitting absolutes does not constitue absolutism.
Isn't it true that some relationships are necessary, and some are relative?
Is that relativism?

John Page

Necessary? Who would need it?
We could debate the diffeence between a seemingly fixed relationship as against a variable relationship. The latter could be an individual w.r.t. reality, the former could be v=d/t through Planck's constant (although the latter is reflected in a standard unit of distance which itself is not necessarily immutable).
So, I think the debate is whether reality (the ususal benchmark) admits of "absolute relationships" rather than a priori assume relativism is "the correct view". On the other hand, relativism does seem the best working hypothesis available.....
Knowledge is w.r.t. the knower so I don't think there's any difficulty with this one.
No, but fix one absolute and all else spins around this anchor...although I have to use an objective methodology to show this....
Necessary? I'm still having trouble with this. Necessitated by reality? Necessitated by one's interpretation of reality?

Cheers, John