• Science = Truth

  • Science DOES NOT = Truth

33% 23 votes
67% 47 votes
  • There is a difference between truth or scientific truth for that matter and absolute truth.

    Posted by: reece
  • Truth is not black and white, it's a scale. Science helps us move closer to the truth end of the scale

  • for all intents and purposes... its only a tool to reach the truth. we may never know the truth, as our minds may not be any more capable of understanding it than a 2 dimensional creature can understand "depth"

  • If it's been scientifically proven, then yes.

  • Science creates theories that remain so until proven, then they can be taken as true. If new evidence comes to light they will return to being theory but this does not happen often as the burden of proof for an absolute truth is high.

  • It offers the best measurement of "truth" we have in our possession, but it doesn't mean we're close to the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

  • "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"; does not necessarily equal truth. The activity does equal to observation or experimentation, though. Observation and experimentation alone does not necessarily constitute truth because there are actions or activities that can be observed and experimented on that reveal inconclusive results, which means that there may be quite a number of questions that cannot be answered by science. Science, etymologically, pretty much comes from 'to know' - if we were to take this word, 'know' and look at what it means to know we would find that it is relatively agreed that for a person to know they must have true, justified belief (aside from in Gettier cases). This means that science seeks not just the truth, but justification of that truth and in some ways a little bit of faith in that justification of the truth. Because of this, science does not necessarily equal truth, if truth is only one component of what science aims to achieve.

  • Science can help find some "truth", but I think science is mainly more about understanding and development. And the purpose of science is not to discover "truth". Then, of course, there's "truth" that science doesn't even bother trying to discover (IE historical truth).

  • Science is the method for attempting to find truth through systematic experimentation and empirical probability.

  • No thats why Scientist Practice, just like doctors they practice their profession because it can change.

  • It only can help us reach closure to truth. Science is always changing.

    Posted by: Najs
  • No. Science is the process and the study by which you find out the truth.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • Science is based off of human observation, as such is heavily prone to human error.

  • Here is my elaborate answer: no.

  • "Science" used to be that the Earth was flat. While I believe it has more physical truth behind it than Creationism, it can never truly explain anything. It only gets you closer to omniscience, never there.

  • No. Science is the logical pursuit of truth.

  • many things are possible that aren't compatible with science. logic is best way to obtain truth.

    Posted by: Bob13
  • Science is the observation of physical phenomena and the subsequent theorizing about the phenomena, but statements of 'truth' are not made. This never leads to truth, even if the observable universe is all that you believe exists.

  • I would argue that science is more of a pursuit of the truth. Science is NOT the truth, but I would say that there is absolutely no better way to find the truth than through science.

  • Science is a method used to discover the truth, not the truth itself.

  • No science is the observation of nature, and therefore it is fact, that is gradually replaced as more and more is learned by scientists

    Posted by: iAdam
  • This is important, so I'm only going to say it once. Science isn't truth. Science strives to find the truth. Most of the time, it succeeds in making important discoveries about the universe. However, it can be wrong sometimes. This is the important part. Some people use the knowledge that science can be wrong as an argument against science as a whole. This is the worst thing that can be done. I see it a lot in the radicalized climate change denier group and other similar fringe groups that have slowly become more and more hysterical over the years (not against the groups' ideas, rather their methods). It is our responsibility as modern citizens to learn and, most importantly, understand science so that our society can continue to progress.

  • Science is not always right and scientists are always saying something new

  • Science is a method used to estimate truth to great certainty; it is not truth itself.

    Posted by: iQ
  • Science can tell us a lot of truths. We know that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits around the sun, and that gravity makes things fall when we drop them: all because of science. However, there are a great deal of things that can't be explained by science. We have no idea what existed before the Big Bang, how dark matter works, what happens if you fall into a black hole, or even if there exists a God or not. It is therefore completely possible that supernatural phenomenons exist that could provide us with truth if we had access to it, that science could never explain. We must also understand that all science is based on the idea that we don't know the definitive truth. Nothing is so certain that it can't be questioned. We can for this reason not assume that science would provide all the truth, nor always be truthful.

  • i dont want to come off as an idiot, but science strives for the most accurate conclusion, though it is also must infer a lot though the is mounds of evidence for things like evolution, the evidence for theories like the many worlds interpretation or the size of the universe have little evidence and in current year can not be successfully studied

  • Science itself, When properly practiced, Discovers truth. Corrupt and biased scientists are another matter entirely.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
billybobby33 says2015-06-24T11:04:10.2643767-05:00
I believe science = some truth. Science can tell us only as much as we can understand. Our senses are limited . And until that is true, Science cannot = truth, but some truth.
reece says2015-06-24T11:29:44.1242840-05:00
@billybobby33 I don't think we're talking about absolute truths,
reece says2015-06-24T12:07:37.8392788-05:00
@Episteme Again, there is a difference between truth and absolute truth. A person telling a truth doesn't need to be correct, just honest.
shaddamcorrinoIV says2015-06-24T13:47:31.0278999-05:00
What i'm referring to is the philosophy of Nietzsche who felt that science can only describe the world not explain the world.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-24T13:49:04.3294976-05:00
It isn't truth ... Its a method for finding it.
Najs says2015-06-24T15:07:24.1519039-05:00
@ShaddamcorrinoIV, I'm off topic here, but thanks for posting pics of 2 of my favorite men ;)
UtherPenguin says2015-06-24T17:16:22.0255063-05:00
Science is based off of human observation, as such is heavily prone to human error.
Episteme says2015-06-24T17:43:03.8799106-05:00
@reece and @dmussi12 What do you mean by 'absolute truths' vs 'scientific truths'? How can x be true, but not true at the same time? Truth in and of itself, is an absolute. A=A, 1=1. To say that 1 does not equal 1 is false. There is no difference between 'scientific' truth or 'absolute' truth. Truth means that it corresponds to a certain fact. (Other people might say that 'Truth is the end of enquiry' if you're a fan of Peirce. Which would be potentially relevant if scientific inquiry then did lead to truth, so it's an interesting thought. I won't go over this though.) If a statement does not correspond to a certain fact, then it is false - regardless of the method of inquiry in which the statement was found. There are no 'shades of grey' of truth because logic would not be possible without truth being an absolute. To say that A=B would be false if A really didn't equal B. A is equal to A because A needs to be something and it is at least equal to itself so therefore A=A. Individual people may see a thing differently, but what they see does not make it true or false. It just is what they see. If what they experience is not in correspondence with reality or stated facts then their beliefs are incorrect. To know something is not merely to hold truth, but it is to have belief and justification of that truth. "A person telling a truth doesn't need to be correct, just honest." This is false. A person needs to be correct if they are telling a truth, otherwise they are incorrect and therefore not telling a truth. A person who is honest is meant to be truthful to what they believe, otherwise they aren't being honest.
reece says2015-06-24T21:02:16.8755452-05:00
@Episteme There a different forms of truths just like there are different forms of infinities. It isn't a simple 1=1 or A=A. A truth can be false in one aspect of reality but can correspond with another e.g. An illusion. Or an ambiguous question could have two or more correct answers but one of them is unknowable in that point of time. That's just two examples.
reece says2015-06-24T21:10:06.4518175-05:00
There is no such things as absolutes, only in philosophical thought experiments.
reece says2015-06-24T22:58:40.2020774-05:00
@Kreakin just to let you know a theory is the highest form of a scientific standard. There would need to be a theory of everything to conclude that something is absolute. Science can only tell you the best possibility.
Episteme says2015-06-25T05:53:17.4393611-05:00
@reese An absolute is "a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things." Truth is meant to be universally valid. Mathematical truths are absolute. The absolute value of 3 or -3 is still 3. If truth were not absolute, it would be extremely difficult to conduct scientific experiments and have any conclusive results. Otherwise, if truth were not absolute and if truth were subjective, then one scientist may disagree with the findings of another and neither would reach any type of conclusion that is found to be absolutely true. Although, the purpose of science isn’t just to reveal truth, it is to reveal knowledge in which truth is only one component. You can’t have science if you don’t have absolute truth. There would be no true results, otherwise. An illusion is intended to be false. If someone hallucinates that a cat is in front of them, just because they saw a cat doesn't mean there really was a cat there. An illusion can never be true no matter how 'real' it was for them. It’s true that it’s an illusion. "A truth can be false in one aspect of reality but can correspond with another." A truth cannot be false - otherwise it isn't true. If I see what I perceive to be a zebra in a zoo from a distance and it's actually a horse painted with stripes, I haven't actually seen a zebra, I saw a horse painted with stripes. It is false for me to say that I saw a zebra, even if I don't have knowledge of the fact that it was a horse painted with stripes. It isn't 'true specifically for me' that I saw a zebra, since I didn't actually see one. There is an absolute there because the animal is in existence as a horse and not as a zebra. The animal didn't change just because I thought I saw a zebra. If someone goes to a play - and someone in the audience doesn't hear a certain line being said, that doesn't mean that the line wasn't said by one of the characters in the play - just that that individual audience member didn't hear it. Are you referring to vague predicates, in which we ask, 'How tall is tall?' In a community of dwarves a 5ft tall person could be considered tall to them? When it comes to these questions, there are some solutions. One is that we don’t need to place a truth value on flawed and vague semantical questions. It’s not true or false - there is no truth value to place onto it. Just because no truth value can be placed on a vague predicate does not make it true for one individual or false for another - there simply doesn’t have to be that type of value placed onto it. We think that each individual’s perception affects what reality actually is, but it doesn’t. Reality is. Just because I perceive something differently, doesn’t mean I saw it correctly or ‘truthfully.’ Another argument against this, is that the human language is not perfect and that vagueness is merely a part of human language. Since there is such a thing as vagueness, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with there being absolutes or that there’s anything wrong with logical or mathematical truths, it means language is unable to be less vague. However, soritical predicates can be done away with. It’s not impossible for them to be eliminated within language, but then we would end up having to be extremely precise all the time. Vagueness is a semantic phenomenon and not a mathematical or logical one. Semantics does not necessarily express logical values.
reece says2015-06-25T08:39:35.2499025-05:00
@Episteme A truth requires someone to ask.
reece says2015-06-25T08:42:19.4637811-05:00
Absolute truths don't.
Episteme says2015-06-25T08:49:53.1933858-05:00
@reece What do you mean? Ask what? Absolute truths still require questions.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T08:50:28.6631928-05:00
Explain pls
Kreakin says2015-06-25T08:51:48.5657317-05:00
^ reece
reece says2015-06-25T08:57:03.8017964-05:00
@Episteme Truths require someone to question, i should say. Absolute truths are true whether we observe or not. Is 3 still 3 after we don't observe it? Of course not, the state is non-existent.
Episteme says2015-06-25T09:01:14.5676889-05:00
@reece Truth is true regardless of it we observe it or not. Just because we're asking a question about it doesn't mean that it being true or false changes if we are wrong. All truth is absolute. There is no difference between truth and absolute truth. There are statements that are true or false and there are separate questions that are either true or false. If someone were to adhere to the scientific method, they would develop a hypothesis after observation. They would experiment to see if that hypothesis is true, false or if aspects of the hypothesis are true or false. That doesn't make the entire hypothesis true because aspects of it are true, just the aspects of the hypothesis. The reality doesn't change. Reality is a constant to base observations and hypotheses on, in turn truth (because truth is reflective of reality) is a constant to base observations and hypotheses on.
reece says2015-06-25T09:14:54.7286614-05:00
@Episteme Matter alters when not observed thus Truth doesn't exist when it's not observed.
reece says2015-06-25T09:18:50.8720431-05:00
How many ways do i have to say it?
Episteme says2015-06-25T09:57:39.1906552-05:00
@reece Matter isn't equivalent to truth. They're separate. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. Truth exists independent and regardless of matter.
reece says2015-06-25T10:20:43.8474970-05:00
@Episteme I meant absolute truth. I'll try to be more precise.
reece says2015-06-25T10:28:07.3143321-05:00
But yes thought is equivalent to matter.
Episteme says2015-06-25T10:42:13.4122029-05:00
@reece Are you saying, 'Matter alters when not observed thus absolute truth doesn't exist when it's not observed.'? 3 is still 3, regardless of whether we observe it or not. It doesn't just disappear if we don't observe it. Truth is truth whether we observe it or not. A chair is still in this room whether I see it or not. Regardless, thought isn't equivalent to matter because thoughts don't take up space or have mass. Mass is anything that takes up space and has mass. Presumably you meant to say truth though. Matter and truth are not equivalent. Are you talking about 'matter' as in the the substance of which objects are made (this corresponds to mass being anything that takes up space and has mass)? Or are you talking about matter as in 'the substrate from which physical existence is derived, remaining more or less constant amid changes'? The second type of matter is much closer to truth, but it still doesn't refer to truth, it refers to material. Also, even that type of matter remains more or less constant, even if it is an archaic philosophical definition. Some Greek philosophers thought everything was made up of water and that was considered to be matter at the time. Matter in either definition is not the same as truth. Truth exists regardless of objects or matter.
reece says2015-06-25T11:27:55.2376997-05:00
@Episteme Yup that's what I've been saying. Everything that happen, happens in our mind even if the 3 is written down. We still have to observe it to give it meaning. When we don't observe it, it becomes a different state. I didn't say a thought is matter, i said their equivalent. Ideas are direct consequences of chemical and electrical pulses. Truth is a concept of a thought.
reece says2015-06-25T11:30:08.9052743-05:00
I'll repeat myself if you forget where i'm coming from "There is no such things as absolutes, only in philosophical thought experiments."
reece says2015-06-25T11:47:05.9054571-05:00
When i say observe i mean having an idea in your head just to be clear.
Episteme says2015-06-25T12:28:48.4743825-05:00
@reece Truth is not in our heads. It's an objective, absolute that exists beyond our thought processes and our observations. Truth exists whether we observe it or not. All truth is absolute. It doesn't change - it's unwavering. Truth is independent of me or you or objects, or most physical things in general. Truth doesn't change when we don't observe it. Otherwise it wouldn't be truth. Truth exists there as it is regardless if we observe it or not. The number 3 doesn't have to be observed to give it meaning. 3=3 regardless of whether we observe the fact or not. "I didn't say a thought is matter, i said their equivalent." To say X is Y is the same as saying X is equivalent to Y. They're not different phrases. Besides, matter is what gives things space and mass! It has nothing to do with truth or thought. That's not what 'observation' is. An observation is to notice or perceive something and register it as being significant. You need something to perceive (scientists perceive reality). Just a random idea in one's head isn't an observation.
reece says2015-06-25T12:42:04.3751877-05:00
]*facepalm* Would you say the colour red is absolute?
reece says2015-06-25T12:46:01.3521468-05:00
An observation is an underlying thought. Everything is. You didn't actually tell me how i was wrong.
reece says2015-06-25T12:50:33.3770763-05:00
Equivalence means the same value as.
reece says2015-06-25T12:57:02.2558623-05:00
Two things of the same value aren't necessarily the same thing.
dmussi12 says2015-06-25T13:02:57.4177845-05:00
Truth is not a property of the universe, it's a term we use to describe how accurately a statement reflects something in reality, not reality itself. Like reece said, the color red is not a truth. An apple is not a truth. The statement that 'an apple can be red' IS a truth. As for gradations of truth, the easiest example is the shape of the Earth (I think Carl Sagan came up with this): saying the Earth is flat and saying the Earth is a sphere are both technically wrong, but one is more wrong than the other. Science moves us from very wrong to less wrong.
reece says2015-06-25T13:09:45.3500292-05:00
@dmussi12 thanks. But If he actually said red is absolute i would then ask him how does he know that his red is the same as my red? It links up to what you've said about how accurately a statement reflects something.
reece says2015-06-25T13:16:56.2615158-05:00
Relativity 101
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T13:52:57.9530991-05:00
"Two things of the same value aren't necessarily the same thing." Thats incorrect, from the 1+1 standpoint. Anything that is different from 1 in any way is no longer 1 and the equation wouldnt be representative of it. There is some value though that could be used to represent what is there ... Even if it is not 1. You can have absolute '1' and absolute '1' and add them together. What you are referring to is not 1 at all if it is different in any way. 1 is an absolute. Its a theoretical thing, it can be an absolute. It can also be used to represent absolutes in RL.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T13:54:15.8679980-05:00
Your statement was a contradiction in terms of numbers and values.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T13:55:37.9647774-05:00
"how does he know that his red is the same as my red?" Accurate measurement of light frequency.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T13:57:29.6125254-05:00
Or wavelength. Red = 620–750 nm. If he determined yours was the exact same wavelength ... Your reds are identical.
reece says2015-06-25T14:05:44.5002270-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Are you including emotion, reasoning, photoreceptors, etc? You do know what absolute is, right?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:09:29.3477813-05:00
None of those things decide what red is. Those are opinions. Red as a measurement of matter is absolute.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:10:27.1620627-05:00
Matter, energy, particle vibration, whatever tool you decide to use. Red as it reacts to those things is absolute and measurable.
reece says2015-06-25T14:12:40.0766187-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality it's a thought like all things... It's subjected to senses that vary from person to person.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:13:58.3901247-05:00
Point is ... If we used a standard and found your red to be 625nm and his red to be 625nm and neither of you was moving in any way towards or away from the source that might change its frequency, it would be the very same red. The exact same, if you will.
reece says2015-06-25T14:14:58.8724878-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality read what i said above.
reece says2015-06-25T14:18:47.5572855-05:00
Now i'll repeat it again to get it through your thick skulls "There is no such things as absolutes, only in philosophical thought experiments."
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:29:14.8995622-05:00
Youre saying in all the possible instances the universe can kick out that it never ever kicks out the same thing twice? Ever? Never ever?
reece says2015-06-25T14:32:00.4515872-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality There can never be an exact same thought let alone between two people.
reece says2015-06-25T14:32:46.5606796-05:00
There always has to be an observer.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:41:28.3752176-05:00
I think you only believe that because of the level of complexity it takes to make a thought. If much more simple things can be perfectly replicated, so can a thought. In a infinite universe that second third fourth etc. occurrence of a thought is an absolute inevitability.
Episteme says2015-06-25T14:43:13.9319420-05:00
Red, as demonstrated by FreedomBeforeEquality, is measurable. Regardless if someone were colour blind, that same wavelength exists as it is. Observation or not, that measurement in and of itself does not change. If there is a chair in the room and I turn my head away from it, doesn't mean the chair has all of a sudden disappeared. It's still there, just not in my vision. That chair didn't change, just because I wasn't looking at it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T14:46:39.9025054-05:00
Right, reece is going with the whole "tree falls in the woods with no one around to hear it" idea though.
reece says2015-06-25T14:46:40.2145114-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality what simple things? How is it an inevitability? @Episteme FreedomBeforeEquality seems more reasonable. I'll just be talking to him from now on.
reece says2015-06-25T14:49:19.7456252-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Something that you can't sense is not worth talking about in this topic.
Existentia says2015-06-25T15:04:16.2257016-05:00
@reece You're not actually giving reasons - you're merely stating your opinion again and again. You keep repeating that there are no absolute truths apart from in thought experiments. Other people are trying to give you reasons as to why your view is wrong. It doesn't matter whether someone observes matter - it doesn't change the truth of it. There's a chair on the balcony. This is true. I may not observe it at this moment, but it IS there. It's not false that there's a chair on the balcony because there IS a chair on the balcony. Also - there's no difference between an 'absolute truth' and a 'truth'. Truth is absolute. All truths are absolute. They're not both false and true at the same time. It COULDN'T be. It would be a contradiction. Something may be true at one point and false at another, but it doesn't change it being true when it was true and false when it was false. You say 'a theory is the highest form of scientific standard'. This doesn't even make sense. Firstly, what the Hell does it even mean? Secondly, science would be much happier with a conclusion. No one cares about asking questions. People want answers to questions. A truth refers to something in reality. It is true that I exist. It is true that there's a café down the road from me. It is true that Obama is the president of the US and that Cameron is the PM of the UK. It is true that Michael D. Higgins is the president of Ireland. You may not have known that Higgins is the pres of Ireland, but it doesn't mean it's not true. It certainly doesn't mean it's not true for you. It is universally true - the president of Ireland (objectively) is Michael D. Higgins. It doesn't matter if you consider it or not, 'three' will have meaning, independent of people's thought. Pi, it seems, has an actual figure, though mathematicians haven't yet fully calculated it, yet. ... I'm not entirely sure you understand 'truth', Reece. Nor am I sure you understand what 'absolute truth' means. Nor 'observation'. At least, you don't seem to provide any reason to make us think that you do. If you do understand the ideas - please, tell us. Explain yourself. Give us an argument. Tell us how we're wrong and that you are correct. At the moment you're merely stating unsupported ideas. Try and argue your point and provide us some insight into your view, don't shy away from reason.
Episteme says2015-06-25T15:07:39.1039701-05:00
I know you're not talking to me, reece, but this is what you seem to agree with: apparently nothing exists apart from what we sense. Nothing at all... If we can't sense a certain scientific experiment occurring, it didn't exist. Lisa hasn't been to China, so China might not exist for her. If I'm not looking out my window, my window isn't there. You think that if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. I can't sense, right at this moment, that the government exists, so it doesn't exist for me. Even though, regardless of there being an observer or not, the sound is a wavelength that occurs regardless of an observer and so the sound would still occur even though there might not be anyone to hear it. The government is still there even if I deny its existence. China still exists, even if Lisa hasn't been there before. Science experiments are still going on without my ability to perceive them.
reece says2015-06-25T15:10:23.5219463-05:00
Can we all agree that that everything that happens, happens in our mind?
reece says2015-06-25T15:12:23.4698715-05:00
Sorry about the extra "that"
Existentia says2015-06-25T15:14:40.8592971-05:00
No, we can't agree with that. That's what the majority of us is arguing against. It's not that everything happens in our mind - everything we observe/etc. Happens in our mind AS WELL as in an external reality. The contention is that we don't believe that everything is ONLY in our mind.
PetersSmith says2015-06-25T15:15:22.3273110-05:00
Don't bother arguing with reece, he thinks he's always right and smarter than all of you.
reece says2015-06-25T15:15:56.6947719-05:00
@Existentia the belief is in your mind....
reece says2015-06-25T15:18:21.3291386-05:00
@PetersSmith I love you too.
Existentia says2015-06-25T15:20:43.6310898-05:00
@reece Of course my belief is in my mind, where else would it be? It doesn't deny that my belief is true - whether it is correct or not, it is true that it is my belief. ... You're not giving any arguments. You're just saying words like some adolescent. You haven't yet given any argument against what I've said. Provide a rational debate or go away. You haven't given any reasons, yet. Until you do, I don't think anyone should actually give you the satisfaction of replying.
Existentia says2015-06-25T15:22:06.3074668-05:00
@PeterSmith Seemingly. Now we know.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:24:04.4449396-05:00
"Can we all agree that that everything that happens, happens in our mind?" No. Because things could happen and I not be around to sense them. You on the other hand could relay them to me and it still would have happened exactly the way they happened regardless of the fact that my 3rd hand perception of it was different than your direct perception of it. It still happened the same no matter what.
reece says2015-06-25T15:24:26.6773673-05:00
@Existentia Weather your belief is true or not doesn't matter. All thing that we experience is in our mind, our consciousness.
reece says2015-06-25T15:24:44.5885119-05:00
Episteme says2015-06-25T15:26:42.5313854-05:00
@PeterSmith - But it's just too hard to let it go! Okay... Just one more reply... Or two... Depending... @Existentia - Sorry, but I just had to reply... @FreedomBeforeEquality - I agree. It still happens the way it happens. @reece - There is a world that exists outside of our own minds, regardless of whether I believe in it or not. Reality is still there. As far as we know, we aren't brains in vats, in which scientists are poking and prodding. (If that were the case, the reality and truth would be that we are brains in vats - and the scientists would exist with or without our belief in them.) We perceive what happens in the real world, and we can interpret things differently or see things in different angles, but that doesn't change that there is a world there that exists outside of ourselves or the people observing the world. Truth isn't a belief - it exists separate from belief and is part of this outside world.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:29:32.8400667-05:00
"All thing that we experience is in our mind, our consciousness." THAT is a true statement, 'all things we experience'. All things that happen everywhere else are still happening, whether they go unexperienced or not.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:32:44.6457552-05:00
We can go back to the tree falling in the woods thing for an example here, regardless if I was there for the actual falling or not is irrelevant. If I went there one day and it was up, came back the next and its down ... It fell. Its position as measured in absolutes (up and down) has changed, I can detect it after the fact in its absolute states and know exactly what happened without having been there to experience it happening.
reece says2015-06-25T15:33:05.7755723-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Yet you wouldn't know if it was absolute. You're using your own hypothetical idea of something actually happening to prove your point. That's a form of circular reasoning.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:33:27.8675973-05:00
Unless youre trying to tell me physics go out the window when my back is turned.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:33:53.6146815-05:00
Unless youre trying to tell me physics go out the window when my back is turned and then perfectly reset themselves when i turn back around.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:35:28.1891121-05:00
"Yet you wouldn't know if it was absolute." The thing about absolutes is that as infinitely as you are able to create factors to disprove them, I too am able to infinitely divide out those factors into measurable things.
Episteme says2015-06-25T15:36:28.5088728-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality - "Unless youre trying to tell me physics go out the window when my back is turned and then perfectly reset themselves when i turn back around." That's pretty much what he's saying. He's pretty much denying the existence of anything else other than what an individual might perceive. Everything else doesn't exist, to reece, apparently.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:37:57.9153795-05:00
My depth perception in that sense will always be equal to yours. I can create absolutes wherever it is you decide to concede and stop making more variables. Once we have come to a common ground on that thing and what makes it what it is ... We can form an absolute. You telling all these people that absolutes dont exist is more of an insult to them that they can't percive the same level of complexity that you think you can is all.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:38:18.3927868-05:00
reece says2015-06-25T15:42:49.6877904-05:00
Let me get this straight. You guys are pretty much saying that something can be absolute/absolutely true even if you're ignorant about it? There is a difference between truth and absolute truth.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-25T15:50:10.7854931-05:00
Im saying as much as you can fathom making something not absolute, that same thing can be divided down by that many factors to some base level. It really doesnt matter if its higher or lower leve ... It can still be absolutely identical ... Im just making the case for smaller base level stuff because i assume that would be your counter argument ... That there is yet another unforeseen level of material below that we havent measured and concluded to be identical yet. By identifying that there is one you have also identified something measurable and therefore not expanded outside the bounds of absolute or what is measurable. Youre trying to counter this by working within the same confines that we all are.
Episteme says2015-06-25T15:53:04.5284357-05:00
@reece - YES! OMG! Believe it or not, 3 will always equal 3 even if a toddler doesn't know what 3 is! My glass of water on the table won't disappear if I look away from it. There are people living in South Africa - even though I've never been there. If we did live in a situation where we were brains in vats poked and prodded by scientists - then at least in that absolute reality - there are scientists poking and prodding at us - and that would be the truth! Things exist/are/are true outside ourselves that we can be completely ignorant of. We aren't omniscient! We don't gain all of our knowledge a priori!
reece says2015-06-25T16:00:38.5507887-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality didn't even really reply to me. Episteme I'll just answer your first statement.. 3 plus 3 still equals 3 because someone else other than the toddler can comprehend it. If nobody could comprehend it than it would be none-existent. Because it's a thought caused by special electrical and chemical pulses just for that single digit. .
Existentia says2015-06-25T16:01:30.9642102-05:00
@reece I said I wouldn't, but this is the last one. In your logic - nothing exist outside of my mind. If I don't observe it, it doesn't exist. If I can't perceive it, it's not real. Following that logic, you, Reece, do not exist. What you are supposedly posting on this site is merely a computer program automatically updating the page with writing. You do not exist. Of course, you will think this is wrong, because you can observe yourself. But I can't. Therefore, you don't exist. I exist. You do not. (Of course, to you - I don't exist. But that's the stupidity in your logic. It's incredibly flawed. Only you can't see that.) Things exist external to us. Aliens may exist in the universe. We don't know it, yet, but they might. If they do - they do. They exist beyond our cognising them. Just as we can exist without their observing us.
reece says2015-06-25T16:05:45.8501288-05:00
@Existentia It is a far fetch from saying something is real to something is absolute.
reece says2015-06-25T16:07:55.5786245-05:00
@Episteme 3 still equals 3 i mean.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T16:14:52.0862375-05:00
@reece - Yes we need a brain to make concepts, but things don't change because of our perceptions.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T16:16:23.5598036-05:00
Your perception can change but a truth is still what it was.
reece says2015-06-25T16:16:43.2180960-05:00
@Kreakin when compared to the past, present and other people you can see the changes.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T16:17:43.6380579-05:00
Example pls
reece says2015-06-25T16:19:48.2879423-05:00
@Kreakin Again there is difference between truth and absolute truth. One examples: neuroplasticity.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T16:21:28.7815875-05:00
Can you explain a bit more, thats rather vague as to what the truth is there.
reece says2015-06-25T16:23:10.8778398-05:00
@Kreakin what part?
Episteme says2015-06-25T16:53:26.6044680-05:00
@reece - Just give us one example where 'absolute' truth is completely separate and different to truth itself. Define absolute truth, then define truth and tell us how they're different.
Episteme says2015-06-25T16:55:57.4928972-05:00
@reece - "Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity—it refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses due to changes in behavior, environment, neural processes, thinking, and emotions - as well as to changes resulting from bodily injury." Explain how that proves that truth and absolute truth are different. All I can see is that it regards changes in our brains due to changes in our environment, emotions or thoughts.
Episteme says2015-06-25T16:59:36.7683864-05:00
Something that is real is also absolute. It exists there. I have a glass there sitting on the table. It exists. Just because it could fall and break doesn't mean it wasn't there when I saw it there initially. 3 is not an idea. 3 will always be equal to 3 even if there is no one there to observe it. 3 exists outside of observations. There are things that do exist outside of our own minds that we potentially can know and cannot know about!
reece says2015-06-25T16:59:45.8886912-05:00
Read what dmussi12 said.
reece says2015-06-25T17:03:51.7552899-05:00
What is 3 then? I assume it's not written down.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T17:07:00.1601130-05:00
Reece, talking with you is a waste of time if you ignore a simple request from two people.
reece says2015-06-25T17:09:51.5450088-05:00
What request?
reece says2015-06-25T17:10:17.3167044-05:00
You didn't even answer me.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T17:10:59.8275219-05:00
K, lets call this one.
reece says2015-06-25T17:14:14.2384244-05:00
That was fast.
Kreakin says2015-06-25T17:16:46.1781608-05:00
That's not a win, you just remain wrong. Now that's a truth :p
reece says2015-06-25T17:21:11.1564780-05:00
@Kreakin No i meant you were only in this discussion for a short time.
reece says2015-06-25T17:22:34.4620800-05:00
It might be the truth but it's not a absolute truth ;)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-26T08:04:12.7144003-05:00
"3 plus 3 still equals 3 because someone else other than the toddler can comprehend it. If nobody could comprehend it than it would be none-existent." Only a thought because they are unitless numbers. Just using numbers alone is using measurements of matter with no context. 2 coulombs of charge (for example) actually do exist whether a person is there to think it or not. The number two by itself not so much. I get what your saying though about mathematics in general ... But the second someone sets a standard for what that is with this theoretical scale attached to it ... It has been measured to be absolutely that thing. It's kind of a two pronged thing. People state the number in theory to be able to relate it to you ... But the value of that thing they are describing is the same no matter what. It is absolute.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-26T08:08:04.7572709-05:00
"What is 3 then? I assume it's not written down." When we used unitless numbers in examples way way above we did you wrong. It was implied that they must be tied to some type of standard to describe whatever it is youre talking about measuring in nature. That standard is the same thing i was talking about earlier (being able to divide down infinitely vs. Infinite variables) You can create a standard and once done that thing youve measured and described by unit is an absolute thing.
reece says2015-06-26T10:41:59.6064839-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality What occurs in a thought?
dmussi12 says2015-06-26T12:38:10.7546376-05:00
3=3 is an absolute truth, but science did not get us there. When we start trying to apply a priori knowledge of math to reality, the rules get fuzzier. We can merely use those truths to MODEL reality, not perfectly describe it in an absolutely true way. For example none of our math worked once quantum physics was discovered; we had to invent quantum mathematics to MODEL reality at that level. Saying that assigning mathematical models to a phenomena is equivalent to absolute truth is nonsense; math is just a means to describe. No matter how accurate, that model will never actually capture the full nature of the phenomena. Newton's equations were better at describing orbits than Kepler's, but not as accurate or 'true' as Einstein's, which discarded the notion that gravity was a force rather than a property.
dmussi12 says2015-06-26T12:39:48.0537087-05:00
And back to the RED argument: no one's disputing the wavelengths that people accept as the color red, but the quale, or subjective experience, could be different. Right now it's not possible to measure qualia, so there is no absolute truth relating a wavelength to the experience of individuals.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-26T12:59:20.9934648-05:00
"What occurs in a thought?" The exact same thing that occurs in a physical measurement ... Energy is detected as having affected another medium in some way. In the case of whats going on in your brain there is a delay and a bunch of other things acting on that sensory process as well (memories and such). That same effect though is sensed on inanimate objects and is measurable though. Its all just energy transfers/particle collisions and detection.
dmussi12 says2015-06-26T13:07:18.4822932-05:00
You're completely ignoring any emergent properties with that explanation. No matter what, studying one or two synapses won't ever describe the actual nature of thought.
reece says2015-06-26T13:12:20.5404558-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality how does it manifest?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-29T12:01:07.3280031-05:00
Outside forces react with sensors of the body. Chain reactions send those stimuli to the brain causing more reactions. It ends up formulating an output and you release chemicals/move muscles/etc. In response.
reece says2015-06-29T12:05:28.1182182-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality so it's an idea?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-29T12:12:11.4951753-05:00
@dmussi12 What does the subjective experience matter? If its repeatable enough between human samples and measurable on inanimate objects also (mechanical/electrical sensors), then what does a few anomalies outside of that even matter? I contend that it is still indeed measurable, were you able to gather all of the data accurately ... There is some way you could run that persons brain gamut and come back to the determination that it was right light that entered their eye at so-and-so time. Im certain we will be able to do that fairly readily in the near future. I don't think it matters all that much though (maybe the engineer in me talking) but it shouldnt matter what a persons perception is based on how messed up their brain might be, if you measure it and put a standard to its effect on an inanimate object ... Thats plenty enough to call an absolute. People's sensors just arent as precise ... Theres alot of messed up and unnecessary interconnects in there and they vary from person to person. Generally it all comes to the same conclusion though.
reece says2015-06-29T12:24:08.1055839-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality yes or no?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-29T13:36:15.5869752-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-29T13:36:54.9711408-05:00
Or at least thats how they manifest.
reece says2015-06-30T09:52:37.4316765-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Are those ideas the only connection to make sense of the world?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T10:11:25.4176839-05:00
Well in a sense everything else is doing the exact same thing with less lag. It all is essentially making sense of itself in real time by always following the same physical laws. Peoples thoughts on it are just an effect of being subjected to those laws constantly ... Sort of 'taking time to seep in' since the interconnects of the human body are complex and not as straight forward as inanimate matter.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T10:16:44.8933385-05:00
I dont wanna get too philosophical ... But this 'making sense' concept is due to that lag ... Not being able to immediately explain whats going on around you because things are reacting instantaneously and you cant put them all together fast enough. I think being able to look at and trust reactions felt on inanimate objects (from a 3rd party perspective) is really the only way to set a true standard on things. You cant use the human perception of something as an accurate standard at the moment. It doesnt make sense too either. It'd be far more trouble to try and sense it through a human brain than just sense the same effect on an atom of a particular element. You'd get the same data and take out the human complexity factors. Much easier math to work with and just as applicable.
reece says2015-06-30T11:02:01.0108584-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Yet you say something can be absolute.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T11:27:20.3510970-05:00
It still is absolute ... Its just much less complex and more easily measured on inanimate objects.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T11:28:30.5906483-05:00
I think in theory ... Red as you interpret it in your brain can be every bit as measureable as it is on inanimate objects (mechanical sensors)
reece says2015-06-30T11:31:11.0741385-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality an absolute is something not diminished in anyway.
reece says2015-06-30T11:32:06.6172071-05:00
Thought diminishes all the time.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T14:19:57.0374333-05:00
Its going somewhere. Expelled in some manner or another. If you could capture literally all energy entering and leaving the body (maybe something Matrix style with the battery things people were living in), there would be no net increase from what you put in to what you got out. It would essentially be just like a battery. The human mind isnt adding or taking away anything, its just transferring reactions in different directions at different rates within itself.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T14:20:50.4578610-05:00
Again ... Physics doesnt just go out the window here. Conservation of mass and energy.
reece says2015-06-30T14:27:25.7034690-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality thought is the only means of interpreting the world. You can't capture the net worth of energy.
reece says2015-06-30T14:31:16.5605113-05:00
You couldn't consider that an absolute.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T14:33:06.3874259-05:00
IF you could measure all of that data at any moment in time ... You could have absolutes in the human body too. You just have to be able to measure out factors that cause the variation between those measurements you want. Say for example (a very dumbed down example) you located all of the possible areas of the brain that the color red excites when exposed to a human eye. You could normalize that measure by analyzing all the different factors that string a reaction in the eye to that last node in the brain and set factors to them (for example ... You find out that a .016 degree bend in a nerve strand reduces the passing signal by .00000048 something-or-others. You could go through and factor out minute differences like that and come to an accurate and comparable measurement of red between the two peoples systems.
reece says2015-06-30T14:37:24.5632051-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality You can only conclude how accurate it is to another person. You have to include emotion, etc too to the thought.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T14:39:33.9574951-05:00
"You can't capture the net worth of energy." Why can't you? You sound like what i'd picture someone from biblical times trying to explain how lightning can't be captured and stored.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T14:43:16.7232226-05:00
Ok ... Emotion ... Stored predispositions to incoming thoughts. Emotion is formed based on previous encounters with thoughts. There's got to be a way to factor that in there too, im sure. Like I said though ... Much much easier to just demonstrate on something inanimate as a standard and use that.
reece says2015-06-30T14:45:42.1909956-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality we're talking about the energy of thought aren't we? The energy of the mind...
reece says2015-06-30T14:49:35.2645021-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality "Ok ... Emotion ... Stored predispositions to incoming thoughts. Emotion is formed based on previous encounters with thoughts. There's got to be a way to factor that in there too" again an absolute doesn't diminish.
reece says2015-06-30T14:50:56.9632732-05:00
Absolutes don't diminish through spacetime.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T15:28:02.2008826-05:00
Its not diminishing ... Its moving from one place to another. Its only diminishing in the sense that you might consider the whole thought as more than the sum of its parts. It is still essentially the parts that made it up, and those are measurable. If youre saying that the whole thought, in the right place at the right time has a much larger effect than the same energy exerted over a more widespread area of the brain, you might be right at that very moment in time. Though, all of the saved up energy over the widespread area could position that brain to have thoughts peak for it at different times also. I dont think any of it is wasted, diminishes, or is unimportant to the whole equation.
reece says2015-06-30T18:33:06.6763380-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality You're only looking at it from a micro point of view within time. Absolutes are still relevant in macro time too.
reece says2015-06-30T18:40:28.3309021-05:00
If something diminishes a thought in anyway then it's not absolute. This includes through all of time, wouldn't you agree?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T10:10:56.5962249-05:00
Gimme an example of what you think a diminishing thought is. I need to get back on the same page here.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T10:15:04.2041865-05:00
Absolutes in the Macro sense are just rounding and truncating to make something more practical for use. Maybe like currency? A dime? It obviously dosent imply that a dime consists of the same molecule count as one another ... But we will call the standard the same none the less. It can be an absolute for practical purposes. To be a true absolute though youd only be able to account for everything in the micro sense, all the parts that make up that thing. I dont know how a true absolute can exist in the macro sense without the human mind, no.
Preston says2015-07-02T10:17:27.8302850-05:00
Freedom, you already lost, reece is one of the most determined debaters on DDO
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T10:19:45.0397265-05:00
I take that back ... It could exist in that a collection of dissimilar molecules can act the same as a different set of dissimilar molecules, for example. If you wanted to define an area they are contained in ... You could have different things winthin that area ... But if all you can measure is the entire container at once ... You could derive a standard that contains different stuff in the container. Human minds can truncate those observations though ... Matter floating in space cannot. It will take every movement of every microscopic piece in that container into effect even though you cannot detect it. Idk ... Micro level seems more paramount to accuracy ... Macro to practicality and usability.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T10:32:37.6170266-05:00
@Preston Im still waiting to see any claims justified. Ive only been asked more questions and been given more one statement claims. Im still not entirely sure what makes him think ideas cant be quantified, why absolutes cannot exist without a human mind, why he seems to think everything ceases to exist were it that humans did not exist. The idea that a human has to be around for anything to be sensed and in turn exist still baffles me.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T10:33:19.6459303-05:00
Im not really trying for a win or lose thing ... I just want to understand where he's coming from.
reece says2015-07-06T18:31:16.3554585-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Something that diminishes is a thought that doesn't stay in the same state. Brain plasticity.
reece says2015-07-06T18:32:05.2997396-05:00
Thoughts aren't static.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T07:55:24.9573671-05:00
Theyre cumulative though ... They dont just go away. A thought becomes more powerful when coupled with other supporting thoughts ... Some are entirely meaningless on their own. I think that sort of relationship is quantifiable. Maybe you quantify it based on how strong it is ... How much influence it must have to be able to actually transfer over to physical motions in the body. People dont choose to make thoughts become reality ... They just reach a breaking point where theyve been saturated with the right types of thoughts at particular times to make them do the things they do. That would be determinism for you.
reece says2015-07-07T11:19:56.9408049-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Yes, they don't just go away, they change...
reece says2015-07-07T11:22:52.9123686-05:00
It comes back to what dmussi12 said "Truth is not a property of the universe, it's a term we use to describe how accurately a statement reflects something in reality, not reality itself."
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T12:02:47.2360796-05:00
But the ones youre talking about, cumulative thoughts, are derived truths. Truths that you have to take a multitude of examples to come to a conclusion about it being a truth at all. The more complex the process you are using to interpret the truth the more samples you are going to need to phase out all the noise you are getting from outside interactions. Two inanimate objects acting on eachother are much less complex and truth can be exacted from them in much easier a fashion. Like we were talking about before ... The farther you break it down the easier quantifying it becomes. If your base unit is an atom ... Its easy to say this atom will do this every single time. If youre trying to derive what an atom does when as far as you can go is the rock it came from ... You have to do alot more experimentation to separate out the data you want. Its still there though.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T12:06:44.2803082-05:00
I dont think you can say it is not a property of the universe until you can find some level that isnt quantifiable. Everything ends up having a reasonable explanation and as the universe tends along that line, that set of laws, there is an underlying absolute truth there.
reece says2015-07-07T19:43:56.0017265-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality How do you know it's there if you only have your thoughts?
reece says2015-07-07T19:44:43.9159861-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Yeah i disagree with the start of the sentence but that wasn't my point.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T09:10:06.1817510-05:00
"How do you know it's there if you only have your thoughts?" I dont only have my thoughts though. Essentially i'd have yours and anyone elses thoughts too to corroborate my observations and also I am able to link seemingly unrelated observations using natural laws to prove it happens on varying scales too. I think looking at this thing from a singular perspective ... Yes you could wonder how anything exists outside of yourself ... But the second you have multiple people or multiple instances all pointing the same way about something ... That is an entirely different entity. It takes two data points to establish a trend.
reece says2015-07-08T10:04:38.3125568-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Yet it would still be your thoughts, your interpretation of what i think or anyone else thinks. Again, it's how accurate a statement reflects something in reality, not reality itself. A trend is not absolute.
reece says2015-07-08T10:07:20.1167940-05:00
A trend is not absolute nor indicates something absolute.*
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T11:30:51.1891985-05:00
Its not different though. I might translate it differently in my head but the object or phenomena being measured is the exact same, whether its just me making the observation or its literally everyone else but me. I dont have to have seen what another person sees for them to be able to convey its image to me as they and 1000 others see it. And the instant I see it myself I would automatically know exactly what it was they were talking about. This might only differ for an insane person ... Though I dont know what it is they think they see and cannot attest for them. I am certain though that even in them observations resonate similar to how they would in any normal mind ... They just dont have the infastructure in place to translate what they are seeing and hearing as effectively (effectively as in, in line with what others see and hear as well). They maybe dont know what is acting on them.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T11:36:38.1214863-05:00
Thats what I mean though ... I dont have to be present for the standard to be set and the observation to be made. Literally everyone else in the world could have made the observation except for me and that thing would have an absolute established whether my mind was there for it or not. In fact i will have no play in it ... They will end up telling me what that standard is ... I dont create it or anything ... I just listen. Same goes for anything else in the universe. Matter is just speaking to me and im listening ... Im not the one creating these absolutes on my own out of thin air.
Preston says2015-07-08T11:37:24.6489919-05:00
161 posts later and no one agrees...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T11:40:15.2473100-05:00
Its like the whole allegory of the cave thing. The things creating the shadows are real things ... Their interactions are there and they just closely relate to the underlying truth and absolutes. You can still learn quite a bit about that underlying absolute by looking at all the things outside of it and how they are affected. Enough perhaps even to define that absolute itself.
reece says2015-07-08T16:15:38.4676815-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality You still don't seem to differentiate between what is reality and what is absolute reality. I will try to come from another prospective. You use words to best describe your evaluation of the world and so does everyone else... But the words you use or they use doesn't represent the exact thoughts. It's about how accurate it is.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T16:28:24.3850721-05:00
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It doesnt matter what you call it ... We are talking about the same underlying thing. I dont differentiate them because of the simple fact that they arent different.
reece says2015-07-08T16:33:14.9433780-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality My first thoughts that i can recall is 'It depends if it's the same type of rose.' Can you give me a better one?
reece says2015-07-08T16:40:12.3676595-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality I'll try.. Most cars have four wheels.
shaddamcorrinoIV says2015-07-08T20:32:38.8230061-05:00
This thing has spiraled out of control
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T08:20:38.6498612-05:00
"Most cars have four wheels." But can always be classified by their performance metrics, or body type or whatever. There is always some level that you can break it down to to make a distinction between them. And when you can't, they are the same car.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T08:52:00.3450718-05:00
And when you say they arent the same because 'blank', then youve just made another distinction, another building block, and the absolute has been redefined. Absolutes can exist though ... You just have to have a means to measure the things that separate that thing from being different from something else.
reece says2015-07-09T09:24:35.5433949-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Then it leads back to ignorance. Absolutes exist whether you're conscious of it or not, Two thoughts can not be the same, Words are limited, etc, etc, etc. Lets come from another prospective.. What features make something an absolute?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T09:45:58.7095928-05:00
I get what youre saying ... And as infinite the possibilities may be ... There is that many chances, too, that all things come into alignment again. And again and again. As far as absolutes go anyway.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T09:48:41.2087234-05:00
Its going to be one of those things you cannot prove or disprove ... Because like I said, youre even mentioning a distinction between the two gives the other person something to define. You arent going to be able to find something ever that goes farther than our ability to create a distinction for.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T09:52:52.4741396-05:00
For exapmle, if you tried to tell me all the ways this apple could be different from another apple identical to it. Everything you mention as being able to be different, that would cause them to not hold true to the definition of absolute, is going to create another iteration of measure where we can came back and say objects are identical.
reece says2015-07-09T10:03:49.8023604-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality You're argument is that it's valid to be ignorant of reality to claim absolutes exist. My argument is that you can only perceive reality to the best of your abilities and thus absolutes are void.
reece says2015-07-09T10:04:02.2038498-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T10:17:04.5957066-05:00
I think your idea of what an absolute is is totally theory based, since you say it cannot exist in reality ... Only in the human mind ... Where you then say that ideas in the human mind to any effect are ignorant of the true extent of a things complexity. I think we are starting to talk circles here.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T10:25:06.4343118-05:00
The reason though ... That I think we can truly define absolutes is because of how any logarithmic or power type graph works. You can continuously break something down approaching an absolute (its base). You dont ever have to completely hit that base to be able to make a call about its existence based on multiple data points leading up to it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T10:27:17.7168113-05:00
Thats the best figure I can use to describe the nature of absolutes. Maybe you are never able to get enough data to prove definitively that its there, but its there. Youll approach it. And if you could account for every single little thing there, then you would hit it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T10:28:39.0803766-05:00
And nature does account for everything that is there. It does it all the time 100% of the time. Thats why they must exist in nature and actually can only be theorized in the human brain.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T10:41:22.4790972-05:00
*Not hitting the base I mean ... But approaching its horizontal or vertical limit.
reece says2015-07-09T11:05:58.3860790-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality "And if you could account for every single little thing there, then you would hit it." you're starting to understand. Reality itself is a given.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T14:45:32.9844440-05:00
Thats the exact opposite of what you were saying though. You said there could be no absolute without the human mind, when truly they only exist in nature and can only be mirrored in the human mind through assumptions and figures. No one is fully aware of all things acting on them, the brain doesnt have that capacity, therefore they cannot know an absolute truth. They can only mimic it to the best of their ability based on imperical data.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T14:47:01.0532361-05:00
I mean, if you want to get technical, it exists in the mind too ... But no one is able to be aware of that in real time. Almost like that movie Lucy.
reece says2015-07-09T20:31:42.0076855-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Reality is a given but what reality is, is another thing. I love that movie.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-10T10:01:47.5462126-05:00
It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
reece says2015-07-10T10:12:51.3009864-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality What? I'm saying reality is a given, but we don't know what it is, as a whole.
reece says2015-07-10T10:21:57.3976925-05:00
You can look at something but not know what it is.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-10T10:45:02.1589643-05:00
I know ... I was making a funny based on what you said earlier is all.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-10T10:46:15.1986325-05:00
Youre right ... Reality is a given ... Absolutes exist there and it does not take a human mind to make that exist.
reece says2015-07-10T10:46:46.9916363-05:00
Lol, umm okay.
reece says2015-07-10T10:48:06.1933440-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality But that requires you to be ignorant. It's not easy to claim something is absolute when you're ignorant about it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-13T13:20:52.7370309-05:00
Hey I never said it was going to be easy to try and comprehend things that brains arent completely capable of even comprehending. But we try dont we.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-13T13:21:54.2819696-05:00
Having to be ignorant to some things in order to prioritize others ... It's part of the human condition.
reece says2015-07-14T21:20:39.2198086-05:00
Yes we try but we can't be certain of an absolute. I agree that it's part of the human condition.
dmussi12 says2015-07-14T21:41:22.4062277-05:00
I just had an idea (probably not a new one, but oh well). Presume that absolute truth is an actual thing. Well, we know that scientific understanding has grown increasingly complex since its advent (new forms of math, more specific calculations, theories with broader reach and greater abstractness. We have no reason to think that future explanations and truths will become any simpler or comprehensible (it's not as if this truth was predesigned TO be discovered with a mind). We also have no reason to believe this absolute truth represents an upper bound on complexity; for all we know, it is infinitely incomprehensible, at least to a mind. Well, we've just reached the conclusion that no mind can possibly contain this knowledge/truth. However, knowledge cannot exist without a mind (by definition), hence an absolute TRUTH descriptive of reality is nonexistent.
Preston says2015-07-14T21:49:25.8641978-05:00
Post 197
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-15T08:45:24.6776336-05:00
Well and then theres always the fact that it may have already been comprehended by someone at sometime out there (enlightenment). That is of course debatable and unbelievable to most. Theres quite a bit of randomness there in human thought that could account for someone out there to have stumbled on it and been deemed insane. Preston ... Thanks for keeping score man.
Preston says2015-07-15T08:46:34.9551831-05:00
Np ;)
dmussi12 says2015-07-15T11:17:07.4915842-05:00
However, that wouldn't be science, but revelation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-15T11:49:25.7660510-05:00
Well it could have been modeled in a scientific sense as having happened out of sheer probability. We are dancing around a perfect model of the universe with all these theories. One person out there is bound to hit it on the money at some point ... They just wont represent the common view of things.
robjohn says2018-10-20T22:22:25.2220767Z
Um sorry, Truth is true or false, Not a scale. Geez

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.