59 replies to this topic

[Nihilated]

Absolutism or relativism, which one is your pick?

[Ben Simon]

Absolutism or relativism, which one is your pick?

Absolutism... but with plenty of room for subjectivity when it comes to things like human reasoning.

[spaceistheplace]

Relativism.

All that I see, hear, taste, smell, and touch are the creations of my mind.

[gashinshotan]

relativism - there's is no absolute truth that isn't distorted into relative truth when we observe it!

[Live Forever]

There is absolute truth in mathematics.

[gashinshotan]

There is absolute truth in mathematics.

It's only true to a consciousness if it can even comprehend math - other than that it's gibberish. Then there's the problem that mathematics is dependent and distorted by the culture that created it.

[forever freedom]

Relativism all the way... absolutism gives rise to all sorts of people with fanatic ideologies.


But when i'm in a discussion, i can be pretty absolutist

[Shannon Vyff]

Relativism! (even though I tend to be pretty absolutist too )

[Ben Simon]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I took the question to not be whether we are capable of percieving truths absolutely, but whether absolute truth exists. One may be a relativist in respect to their own falibility, but surely we must all accept that absolute truths do exist. 2 + 2 will never equal five.

Edited by ben, 28 May 2008 - 04:30 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I took the question to not be whether we are capable of percieving truths absolutely, but whether absolute truth exists. One may be a relativist in respect to their own falibility, but surely we must all accept that absolute truths do exist. 2 + 2 will never equal five.

2 and 5 and any division of matter into units would not exist if a comprehending consciousness did not exist to create it. Get it? How can anything be anything without an observer? And how can any observation be true in the context of a restricted consciousness?

[Nihilated]

What about the laws of physics? That's absolute. Anything that can be defined in quantity (which should be everything in this universe) is absolute. Science encroaches on relativism every day, and I'm asking if there will be any relativism left after we share all of our knowledge in the future with these transhumanist technologies.

[gashinshotan]

What about the laws of physics? That's absolute. Anything that can be defined in quantity (which should be everything in this universe) is absolute. Science encroaches on relativism every day, and I'm asking if there will be any relativism left after we share all of our knowledge in the future with these transhumanist technologies.

The laws of physics fail at the lowest levels of organization and we have yet to observe the highest levels so the laws are not absolute according to physicists. Defining something into a quantity depends on a consciousness capable of doing so - can a dog understand 2 + 2, let alone insects which themselves make up most of the known life in the universe - so who's reality is the truth? The dominant form of life or a minority of super-intelligent beings? Science and knowledge are purely culture and species-based - we know and comprehend the world from a human context which is extremely limited both physically and intellectually - how can we accept anything we create as absolute truth? The same can be applied to any greater intelligence, unless they are omniscient and free from the limitations of a physical body. I'll give an easy example: the sun is round because we defined what round is, created the concept of round, created the concept of a sun, based on our visual interpretation through imperfect light sensors in only a small window of the light spectrum etc. etc You can go on and on and will not escape the reality that what we observe is dependent on our existence as humans - which includes our extreme limitations.

[Live Forever]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I took the question to not be whether we are capable of percieving truths absolutely, but whether absolute truth exists. One may be a relativist in respect to their own falibility, but surely we must all accept that absolute truths do exist. 2 + 2 will never equal five.

2 and 5 and any division of matter into units would not exist if a comprehending consciousness did not exist to create it. Get it? How can anything be anything without an observer? And how can any observation be true in the context of a restricted consciousness?

I believe the point is, though, whether it is observed or not it is still true. 2 + 2 always equals 4. (also, it is still true for the bugs and whatnot even if they can not comprehend that it is true. There are plenty of facts that I can not comprehend, but they are still true) It doesn't really matter though, because the existence of an observer is given as a prerequisite in the question asked. (We wouldn't be able to contemplate relativism vs absolutism if we were not observers)

Edited by Live Forever, 28 May 2008 - 05:13 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I took the question to not be whether we are capable of percieving truths absolutely, but whether absolute truth exists. One may be a relativist in respect to their own falibility, but surely we must all accept that absolute truths do exist. 2 + 2 will never equal five.

2 and 5 and any division of matter into units would not exist if a comprehending consciousness did not exist to create it. Get it? How can anything be anything without an observer? And how can any observation be true in the context of a restricted consciousness?

I believe the point is, though, whether it is observed or not it is still true. 2 + 2 always equals 4. (also, it is still true for the bugs and whatnot even if they can not comprehend that it is true. There are plenty of facts that I can not comprehend, but they are still true) It doesn't really matter though, because the existence of an observer is given as a prerequisite in the question asked. (We wouldn't be able to contemplate relativism vs absolutism if we were not observers)

2+2 does equal 4 - except the numerical system and the operator were created by humans and are thus only valid for humans (as far as we know so far) in a human world in which we divide matter into units and organize matter with useful formulas. This doesn't make it an absolute truth - it's only true because we make it true. What if we had decided to make 2+2=5? It would be just as valid as 2+2=4 if we had arbitrarily chosen to use the character for 5 in place of 4. Truth without an observer can never be known, and truth as seen through an imperfect, ignorant observer will forever be relative.

[Ben Simon]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

[gashinshotan]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

How can anything be considered true if it is not first observed? In the beginning of the 1900s, elementary physics was considered the absolute truth - it was only with Einstein and the rise of quantum physics, scientists who specifically looked at the sub-atomic level of the universe did the truth that the laws of physics were not universal reveal itself. How can anyone claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is universal when we have yet to prove that it is true at the lowest and highest levels of organizations of matter? 2 + 2 = 4 is also a human creation in which matter is divided arbitrarily into units that fit the human mind using language and a formula that were created for human intent. Does 2 + 2 = 4 hold true when using all the other numerical systems, for example in binary? In binary the numbers 2 and 4 do not even exist. Again, if we didn't exist at all, 2 + 2 would not equal 4 because we wouldn't have created the concept of a base-10 numerical system nor the mathematical operators. Did 2 + 2 = 4 exist 3 billion years ago, when prokaryotes dominated earth? No it didn't. Life didn't arbitrarily divide matter into units and thus the concept of addition did not even exist.

A tree falling in the woods would not be considered a tree unless someone defined it as so nor could the sound it produces be defined as "sound" (and at a deeper level as "vibrations" - and at an even deeper level "vibrations" must be defined) without an observer. The mere fact that these "sound waves" would not even be described as "sound" without human observers who only hear through imperfect and restricted ears and brains does mean that their existence as we define it depends on our existence.

Absolute truth is non-existent because it cannot be measured through the distorting and limiting minds - how can you claim something exists if it cannot be measured objectively, free from all influences of the observer?

Edited by gashinshotan, 28 May 2008 - 01:09 PM.

[affinity]

Observation is relative to the biological systems that allow us sensory information from the environment. The environment regardless of observation will affect you.

Relativism because we can only experience the universe relatively.

Absolutism because if I close my eyes and cover my ears on coming traffic will still splatter me (e.g. existence carriers on).

[Live Forever]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

How can anything be considered true if it is not first observed? In the beginning of the 1900s, elementary physics was considered the absolute truth - it was only with Einstein and the rise of quantum physics, scientists who specifically looked at the sub-atomic level of the universe did the truth that the laws of physics were not universal reveal itself. How can anyone claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is universal when we have yet to prove that it is true at the lowest and highest levels of organizations of matter? 2 + 2 = 4 is also a human creation in which matter is divided arbitrarily into units that fit the human mind using language and a formula that were created for human intent. Does 2 + 2 = 4 hold true when using all the other numerical systems, for example in binary? In binary the numbers 2 and 4 do not even exist. Again, if we didn't exist at all, 2 + 2 would not equal 4 because we wouldn't have created the concept of a base-10 numerical system nor the mathematical operators. Did 2 + 2 = 4 exist 3 billion years ago, when prokaryotes dominated earth? No it didn't. Life didn't arbitrarily divide matter into units and thus the concept of addition did not even exist.

A tree falling in the woods would not be considered a tree unless someone defined it as so nor could the sound it produces be defined as "sound" (and at a deeper level as "vibrations" - and at an even deeper level "vibrations" must be defined) without an observer. The mere fact that these "sound waves" would not even be described as "sound" without human observers who only hear through imperfect and restricted ears and brains does mean that their existence as we define it depends on our existence.

Absolute truth is non-existent because it cannot be measured through the distorting and limiting minds - how can you claim something exists if it cannot be measured objectively, free from all influences of the observer?

The complex quantum physics was still true, even though no one had observed it yet. Math was still true before we observed it.

Just as affinity pointed out, just because you do not observe a car coming at you does not make it any less true that it will hit you. Observation is not required to make something true; It is true in and of itself.

But, this all seems moot, because by your own admission we have observed math and phenomenon, and therefore it is true and observed. Just because a bug can't comprehend of math does not mean it is not true. If a mentally challenged person could not comprehend of something the rest of us understand as truth, would that make it any less true for us?

Edited by Live Forever, 28 May 2008 - 03:55 PM.

[affinity]

Live Forever made my point sound better/clearer. However; There is biased reception of the universe. This is of no doubt.

Absolute truth exists with or without observation.
Relative truth developes to better understand the Absolute truth of existence.

Edit: The enter key is the bane of my existence.

Edited by affinity, 28 May 2008 - 04:44 PM.

[gashinshotan]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

How can anything be considered true if it is not first observed? In the beginning of the 1900s, elementary physics was considered the absolute truth - it was only with Einstein and the rise of quantum physics, scientists who specifically looked at the sub-atomic level of the universe did the truth that the laws of physics were not universal reveal itself. How can anyone claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is universal when we have yet to prove that it is true at the lowest and highest levels of organizations of matter? 2 + 2 = 4 is also a human creation in which matter is divided arbitrarily into units that fit the human mind using language and a formula that were created for human intent. Does 2 + 2 = 4 hold true when using all the other numerical systems, for example in binary? In binary the numbers 2 and 4 do not even exist. Again, if we didn't exist at all, 2 + 2 would not equal 4 because we wouldn't have created the concept of a base-10 numerical system nor the mathematical operators. Did 2 + 2 = 4 exist 3 billion years ago, when prokaryotes dominated earth? No it didn't. Life didn't arbitrarily divide matter into units and thus the concept of addition did not even exist.

A tree falling in the woods would not be considered a tree unless someone defined it as so nor could the sound it produces be defined as "sound" (and at a deeper level as "vibrations" - and at an even deeper level "vibrations" must be defined) without an observer. The mere fact that these "sound waves" would not even be described as "sound" without human observers who only hear through imperfect and restricted ears and brains does mean that their existence as we define it depends on our existence.

Absolute truth is non-existent because it cannot be measured through the distorting and limiting minds - how can you claim something exists if it cannot be measured objectively, free from all influences of the observer?

The complex quantum physics was still true, even though no one had observed it yet. Math was still true before we observed it.

Just as affinity pointed out, just because you do not observe a car coming at you does not make it any less true that it will hit you. Observation is not required to make something true; It is true in and of itself.

But, this all seems moot, because by your own admission we have observed math and phenomenon, and therefore it is true and observed. Just because a bug can't comprehend of math does not mean it is not true. If a mentally challenged person could not comprehend of something the rest of us understand as truth, would that make it any less true for us?

Everything your posting is relative though. Math was not true until we created it - it did not even exist. How can something as abstract as math exist before it was developed as a concept by humanity? Or did life-less matter itself create and use the concept of math? Can you prove 2 + 2 = 4 physically without using arbitrary human ideals of division and organization?

Just because I observe a car coming at me only affirms that the truth that the car is coming at me is dependent on my existence. Without my existence nor the existence of the car nor its driver nor the human culture to create the concept of the car the entire situation would not be true. You can go even deeper and question how we define the words "coming" "at" and "you." Without human society to create these concepts these ideas would not exist.

By my own admission we observe math and phenomenon - observe. We are severely limited both visually and intellectually and should not accept anything we sense or think of as absolute truth because we are incapable of doing so. A bug can't comprehend math - because it doesn't exist as a concept in that bug's world. It only holds true in the human world - this makes math nonexistent for those incapable of understanding it and only true to humanity.

[Live Forever]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

How can anything be considered true if it is not first observed? In the beginning of the 1900s, elementary physics was considered the absolute truth - it was only with Einstein and the rise of quantum physics, scientists who specifically looked at the sub-atomic level of the universe did the truth that the laws of physics were not universal reveal itself. How can anyone claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is universal when we have yet to prove that it is true at the lowest and highest levels of organizations of matter? 2 + 2 = 4 is also a human creation in which matter is divided arbitrarily into units that fit the human mind using language and a formula that were created for human intent. Does 2 + 2 = 4 hold true when using all the other numerical systems, for example in binary? In binary the numbers 2 and 4 do not even exist. Again, if we didn't exist at all, 2 + 2 would not equal 4 because we wouldn't have created the concept of a base-10 numerical system nor the mathematical operators. Did 2 + 2 = 4 exist 3 billion years ago, when prokaryotes dominated earth? No it didn't. Life didn't arbitrarily divide matter into units and thus the concept of addition did not even exist.

A tree falling in the woods would not be considered a tree unless someone defined it as so nor could the sound it produces be defined as "sound" (and at a deeper level as "vibrations" - and at an even deeper level "vibrations" must be defined) without an observer. The mere fact that these "sound waves" would not even be described as "sound" without human observers who only hear through imperfect and restricted ears and brains does mean that their existence as we define it depends on our existence.

Absolute truth is non-existent because it cannot be measured through the distorting and limiting minds - how can you claim something exists if it cannot be measured objectively, free from all influences of the observer?

The complex quantum physics was still true, even though no one had observed it yet. Math was still true before we observed it.

Just as affinity pointed out, just because you do not observe a car coming at you does not make it any less true that it will hit you. Observation is not required to make something true; It is true in and of itself.

But, this all seems moot, because by your own admission we have observed math and phenomenon, and therefore it is true and observed. Just because a bug can't comprehend of math does not mean it is not true. If a mentally challenged person could not comprehend of something the rest of us understand as truth, would that make it any less true for us?

Everything your posting is relative though. Math was not true until we created it - it did not even exist. How can something as abstract as math exist before it was developed as a concept by humanity? Or did life-less matter itself create and use the concept of math? Can you prove 2 + 2 = 4 physically without using arbitrary human ideals of division and organization?

Just because I observe a car coming at me only affirms that the truth that the car is coming at me is dependent on my existence. Without my existence nor the existence of the car nor its driver nor the human culture to create the concept of the car the entire situation would not be true. You can go even deeper and question how we define the words "coming" "at" and "you." Without human society to create these concepts these ideas would not exist.

By my own admission we observe math and phenomenon - observe. We are severely limited both visually and intellectually and should not accept anything we sense or think of as absolute truth because we are incapable of doing so. A bug can't comprehend math - because it doesn't exist as a concept in that bug's world. It only holds true in the human world - this makes math nonexistent for those incapable of understanding it and only true to humanity.

Math was true before we observed it. It did exist, we had just not discovered it yet. Atoms existed before we had microscopes to observe them. You seem to be of the opinion that it takes an intelligent mind to observe something before it becomes "real", and I am of the opposite opinion, that things do not need to be observed to be "real". Just because we had not seen far away stars before the invention of a telescope or had not yet come up with mathematical models or any of a thousand things does not mean those things did not exist.

But, and I will say it again, regardless of that fact, by your own admission, we currently have observed the mathematical phenomenon, so even by your own criteria (needing to be observed) the phenomenon is true.

In other words, I think things are always true and do not require an intelligent observer to make them true (I think if you asked most people they would say the same thing), but regardless of that fact, if it were granted that things had to be observed to be true, then by that standard, we can still say things like 1 + 5 = 6 are absolutely true. (not relatively so)

Now, if you want to argue that our perception is somehow limited or there are other things we can not perceive, that is fine, but for all humans alive, on the question of relative vs absolute truth (the question posed), 2 + 5 = 7 is absolutely and positively true. There is no relative to it. Same with laws of physics and lots of other stuff. If humanity came in contact with an advanced alien species, mathematics would be the language we would have in common because it is universally true. They might not use the same base 10 number system, but standard math is true no matter where you are in the universe.

Edited by Live Forever, 28 May 2008 - 07:51 PM.

[gashinshotan]

Why does something need to be observed in order to be true? 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal, immutable truth. It wouldn't matter whether we used a different mathematical language, or had no mathematical language, or if we didn't exist at all. 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound with nobody there to hear it? Yes and no. It's motion in falling creates a disturbance in the air creating sound waves. The mere fact that these sound waves don't find ears and brains to interpret them as sound doesn't mean they don't exist.

Truth is truth. Knowledge and experience are relative.

How can anything be considered true if it is not first observed? In the beginning of the 1900s, elementary physics was considered the absolute truth - it was only with Einstein and the rise of quantum physics, scientists who specifically looked at the sub-atomic level of the universe did the truth that the laws of physics were not universal reveal itself. How can anyone claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is universal when we have yet to prove that it is true at the lowest and highest levels of organizations of matter? 2 + 2 = 4 is also a human creation in which matter is divided arbitrarily into units that fit the human mind using language and a formula that were created for human intent. Does 2 + 2 = 4 hold true when using all the other numerical systems, for example in binary? In binary the numbers 2 and 4 do not even exist. Again, if we didn't exist at all, 2 + 2 would not equal 4 because we wouldn't have created the concept of a base-10 numerical system nor the mathematical operators. Did 2 + 2 = 4 exist 3 billion years ago, when prokaryotes dominated earth? No it didn't. Life didn't arbitrarily divide matter into units and thus the concept of addition did not even exist.

A tree falling in the woods would not be considered a tree unless someone defined it as so nor could the sound it produces be defined as "sound" (and at a deeper level as "vibrations" - and at an even deeper level "vibrations" must be defined) without an observer. The mere fact that these "sound waves" would not even be described as "sound" without human observers who only hear through imperfect and restricted ears and brains does mean that their existence as we define it depends on our existence.

Absolute truth is non-existent because it cannot be measured through the distorting and limiting minds - how can you claim something exists if it cannot be measured objectively, free from all influences of the observer?

The complex quantum physics was still true, even though no one had observed it yet. Math was still true before we observed it.

Just as affinity pointed out, just because you do not observe a car coming at you does not make it any less true that it will hit you. Observation is not required to make something true; It is true in and of itself.

But, this all seems moot, because by your own admission we have observed math and phenomenon, and therefore it is true and observed. Just because a bug can't comprehend of math does not mean it is not true. If a mentally challenged person could not comprehend of something the rest of us understand as truth, would that make it any less true for us?

Everything your posting is relative though. Math was not true until we created it - it did not even exist. How can something as abstract as math exist before it was developed as a concept by humanity? Or did life-less matter itself create and use the concept of math? Can you prove 2 + 2 = 4 physically without using arbitrary human ideals of division and organization?

Just because I observe a car coming at me only affirms that the truth that the car is coming at me is dependent on my existence. Without my existence nor the existence of the car nor its driver nor the human culture to create the concept of the car the entire situation would not be true. You can go even deeper and question how we define the words "coming" "at" and "you." Without human society to create these concepts these ideas would not exist.

By my own admission we observe math and phenomenon - observe. We are severely limited both visually and intellectually and should not accept anything we sense or think of as absolute truth because we are incapable of doing so. A bug can't comprehend math - because it doesn't exist as a concept in that bug's world. It only holds true in the human world - this makes math nonexistent for those incapable of understanding it and only true to humanity.

Math was true before we observed it. It did exist, we had just not discovered it yet. Atoms existed before we had microscopes to observe them. You seem to be of the opinion that it takes an intelligent mind to observe something before it becomes "real", and I am of the opposite opinion, that things do not need to be observed to be "real". Just because we had not seen far away stars before the invention of a telescope or had not yet come up with mathematical models or any of a thousand things does not mean those things did not exist.

But, and I will say it again, regardless of that fact, by your own admission, we currently have observed the mathematical phenomenon, so even by your own criteria (needing to be observed) the phenomenon is true.

In other words, I think things are always true and do not require an intelligent observer to make them true (I think if you asked most people they would say the same thing), but regardless of that fact, if it were granted that things had to be observed to be true, then by that standard, we can still say things like 1 + 5 = 6 are absolutely true. (not relatively so)

Now, if you want to argue that our perception is somehow limited or there are other things we can not perceive, that is fine, but for all humans alive, on the question of relative vs absolute truth (the question posed), 2 + 5 = 7 is absolutely and positively true. There is no relative to it. Same with laws of physics and lots of other stuff. If humanity came in contact with an advanced alien species, mathematics would be the language we would have in common because it is universally true. They might not use the same base 10 number system, but standard math is true no matter where you are in the universe.

No one can prove that math existed before we began dividing matter into arbitrary units using arbitrary formulas and symbols. It is entirely a human concept. Atoms did not exist before we discovered them - it was only upon their discovery did we define what atoms were. What I'm getting at is that without our own creativity and exploration, nothing can be considered to have been real and nothing could have been defined as anything without our intervention.

We have observed mathematical phenomenon. This however does not make math true because math is entirely human-centric. We created the numerical systems, the mathematical operators, the division of matter into distinct units. How does this make math a universal truth? It 's a human invention true only in the human context (as far as we know so far).

1 + 5 = 6 is relatively true, not absolutely. We as humans defined what those numbers represented. If we had chosen to use a 7 to represent the meaning we have assigned to 5, 1 + 7 = 6 would also be true. The same can be applied to any number or operator.

If humanity came in contact with an advanced alien species, our mathematics would not be in common. The current base-10 system developed largely as a result of our having 10 digits - the laws of such a system do not apply to a binary system nor a base 23542323231212 system. Again, our math is entirely dependent on our human context in dividing matter into units arbitrarily. Another example is this, what if another intelligent species decided to assign higher numerical characters with exponentially increasing values? Then 1 + 2 would not equal 3 but rather 11. The same could be applied to even more complex systems which an advanced species might use which would make our system unique and not universal.

[affinity]

Much as the basic elements would provide us with a useful means of communication. Considering they're advanced and made of matter. Shared observation is what forgoes ignorance. Evolution developes from the environment to which adapts without biased to the universe around it. Though we are ignorant and fallible in many respects; we're products of the absolute truth existing around us.

Though arguing this point any further is seeming counter productive.

[gashinshotan]

Much as the basic elements would provide us with a useful means of communication. Considering they're advanced and made of matter. Shared observation is what forgoes ignorance. Evolution developes from the environment to which adapts without biased to the universe around it. Though we are ignorant and fallible in many respects; we're products of the absolute truth existing around us.

Though arguing this point any further is seeming counter productive.

We can never find absolute truth because everything we observe is tainted by our limitations. We only see a tiny fraction of the light spectrum and have very low resolution at that. We also cannot comprehend the true nature of matter because of these reasons and because of our intellectual and technological limitations. If absolute truth cannot be observed and tested, it does not exist - this is science.

[affinity]

Much as the basic elements would provide us with a useful means of communication. Considering they're advanced and made of matter. Shared observation is what forgoes ignorance. Evolution developes from the environment to which adapts without biased to the universe around it. Though we are ignorant and fallible in many respects; we're products of the absolute truth existing around us.

Though arguing this point any further is seeming counter productive.

We can never find absolute truth because everything we observe is tainted by our limitations. We only see a tiny fraction of the light spectrum and have very low resolution at that. We also cannot comprehend the true nature of matter because of these reasons and because of our intellectual and technological limitations. If absolute truth cannot be observed and tested, it does not exist - this is science.

Science is based on observation; if relative observation cannot be reaffirmed scientifically then it too cannot exist.

You have no way of knowing wholesomely by your own admission of human ignorance of knowing whether or not our observations are limited.

You're statement destroys itself.

There can be no scientific observation if there cannot be an unbiased observation.

Scientific observation requires control. There is no control variable for sentient observation.

This entire conversation is completely devoid of rationality in that you argue that something cannot be experienced because we lack the ability to experience it.

Much like saying there is no such thing as air. Only there is an observational method to air. This took time and understanding however as well;

- Individual growth based on observation and manipulation of the environment.
this is followed by;
- Shared observation and controlled environmental testing.

The world will go on when you or I die. This is true.
There is an absolute to the universe that will continue regardless of observation.

[gashinshotan]

Much as the basic elements would provide us with a useful means of communication. Considering they're advanced and made of matter. Shared observation is what forgoes ignorance. Evolution developes from the environment to which adapts without biased to the universe around it. Though we are ignorant and fallible in many respects; we're products of the absolute truth existing around us.

Though arguing this point any further is seeming counter productive.

We can never find absolute truth because everything we observe is tainted by our limitations. We only see a tiny fraction of the light spectrum and have very low resolution at that. We also cannot comprehend the true nature of matter because of these reasons and because of our intellectual and technological limitations. If absolute truth cannot be observed and tested, it does not exist - this is science.

Science is based on observation; if relative observation cannot be reaffirmed scientifically then it too cannot exist.

You have no way of knowing wholesomely by your own admission of human ignorance of knowing whether or not our observations are limited.

You're statement destroys itself.

There can be no scientific observation if there cannot be an unbiased observation.

Scientific observation requires control. There is no control variable for sentient observation.

This entire conversation is completely devoid of rationality in that you argue that something cannot be experienced because we lack the ability to experience it.

Much like saying there is no such thing as air. Only there is an observational method to air. This took time and understanding however as well;

- Individual growth based on observation and manipulation of the environment.
this is followed by;
- Shared observation and controlled environmental testing.

The world will go on when you or I die. This is true.
There is an absolute to the universe that will continue regardless of observation.

Anything science proves is relative to the human context.

Science supports the inability of humanity to perceive reality accurately - the poor visual resolution and inability to see beyond a small range of light, an extremely limited intelligence tainted by emotional instincts.

There is no control for sentient observation, so any claim to absolute truth is impossible.

If something cannot be experienced, how can it be true?

The world will go on when you or I die. This is true - a relative truth. The world is always changing and our deaths would change the definition of the world even if it is insignificant. Thus to those who do not know you or care, the world will go on - to those who care and to yourself, the world does not continue as it was at the time of death.

There is no absolute truth to the universe if it is not observed and proven to exist. Since we are incapable of viewing things accurately, absolute truth does not exist.

[affinity]

Much as the basic elements would provide us with a useful means of communication. Considering they're advanced and made of matter. Shared observation is what forgoes ignorance. Evolution developes from the environment to which adapts without biased to the universe around it. Though we are ignorant and fallible in many respects; we're products of the absolute truth existing around us.

Though arguing this point any further is seeming counter productive.

We can never find absolute truth because everything we observe is tainted by our limitations. We only see a tiny fraction of the light spectrum and have very low resolution at that. We also cannot comprehend the true nature of matter because of these reasons and because of our intellectual and technological limitations. If absolute truth cannot be observed and tested, it does not exist - this is science.

Science is based on observation; if relative observation cannot be reaffirmed scientifically then it too cannot exist.

You have no way of knowing wholesomely by your own admission of human ignorance of knowing whether or not our observations are limited.

You're statement destroys itself.

There can be no scientific observation if there cannot be an unbiased observation.

Scientific observation requires control. There is no control variable for sentient observation.

This entire conversation is completely devoid of rationality in that you argue that something cannot be experienced because we lack the ability to experience it.

Much like saying there is no such thing as air. Only there is an observational method to air. This took time and understanding however as well;

- Individual growth based on observation and manipulation of the environment.
this is followed by;
- Shared observation and controlled environmental testing.

The world will go on when you or I die. This is true.
There is an absolute to the universe that will continue regardless of observation.

Anything science proves is relative to the human context.

Science supports the inability of humanity to perceive reality accurately - the poor visual resolution and inability to see beyond a small range of light, an extremely limited intelligence tainted by emotional instincts.

There is no control for sentient observation, so any claim to absolute truth is impossible.

If something cannot be experienced, how can it be true?

The world will go on when you or I die. This is true - a relative truth. The world is always changing and our deaths would change the definition of the world even if it is insignificant. Thus to those who do not know you or care, the world will go on - to those who care and to yourself, the world does not continue as it was at the time of death.

There is no absolute truth to the universe if it is not observed and proven to exist. Since we are incapable of viewing things accurately, absolute truth does not exist.

2+2=4

[Live Forever]

No one can prove that math existed before we began dividing matter into arbitrary units using arbitrary formulas and symbols. It is entirely a human concept. Atoms did not exist before we discovered them - it was only upon their discovery did we define what atoms were. What I'm getting at is that without our own creativity and exploration, nothing can be considered to have been real and nothing could have been defined as anything without our intervention.

Clearly I disagree (I think we were discovering pre-existing facts instead of the facts popping into existence at the moment we discovered them), but regardless we did in fact discover these things, so they do exist as facts now.

We have observed mathematical phenomenon. This however does not make math true because math is entirely human-centric. We created the numerical systems, the mathematical operators, the division of matter into distinct units. How does this make math a universal truth? It 's a human invention true only in the human context (as far as we know so far).

Human invention or not, mathematics is still universally true. If you have five units of something and take away 2 units, you will always be left with 3 units. No matter where you are in the universe this is universally true. Period.

1 + 5 = 6 is relatively true, not absolutely. We as humans defined what those numbers represented. If we had chosen to use a 7 to represent the meaning we have assigned to 5, 1 + 7 = 6 would also be true. The same can be applied to any number or operator.

It doesn't matter what symbol you use to represent the number. If we used Chinese characters or a banana to represent the number 4 or whatever, the addition and subtraction of them is still true. True, the place holder is something we invented, but the math itself is a universal truth.

If humanity came in contact with an advanced alien species, our mathematics would not be in common. The current base-10 system developed largely as a result of our having 10 digits - the laws of such a system do not apply to a binary system nor a base 23542323231212 system.

Yes, I said that. We have many different base systems on Earth (binary for computers for example) and we understand how and why different base systems work. We would still be speaking the same mathematical language. (of course, I already said that, haha)

Again, our math is entirely dependent on our human context in dividing matter into units arbitrarily. Another example is this, what if another intelligent species decided to assign higher numerical characters with exponentially increasing values? Then 1 + 2 would not equal 3 but rather 11. The same could be applied to even more complex systems which an advanced species might use which would make our system unique and not universal.

We would still understand these rules though. Any system of math has rules that you have to play by. No matter how you represent these rules (or characters or whatever) we still understand how they work, and they work the same everywhere. In your example, of using exponentially increasing values, then 1 +2 = 11 (in that system) everywhere, and is universally true everywhere.

[Live Forever]

Anything science proves is relative to the human context.

As is the question posed. We can only understand it in the human context, as "absolute" and "relative" are human concepts that might not apply outside of our limited understanding. (so even the question does not make sense and has no answer if you are going to be that abstract about it) The fact that the question is asked forces certain constraints upon it in answering it.

[VictorBjoerk]

There is "ABSOLUTE" truth that tuesday comes after monday simply because we choose to define it as absolute truth.

There is also the absolute truth that "something" exists.