Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think that if there is a penny inside a balloon, and the world has only 3 spacial dimensions, then it is not possible to get to that penny without passing throught the region of the space defined by the balloon.
Thank you for the answer kind sir..
So essentially what you mean is that within this "reality" in which we exist..
It is only possible for us to go through the balloon..to get to the penny.
This is an absolute truth to us. Seeing as how we don't have control nor do we have the ability to create a reality where "not" going through the balloon would be possible. Simple stuff to understand.
A clock doesn't have the ability to take itself apart/reset itself, or change it's specific usage..
However the "Clockmaker does"
What is impossible for the "Clock" to do..is possible for the "Clockmaker"
Fin
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thank you for the answer kind sir..So essentially what you mean is that within this "reality" in which we exist..
It is only possible for us to go through the balloon..to get to the penny.
This is an absolute truth to us. Seeing as how we don't have control nor do we have the ability to create a reality where "not" going through the balloon would be possible. Simple stuff to understand.
A clock doesn't have the ability to take itself apart/reset itself, or change it's specific usage..
However the "Clockmaker does"
What is impossible for the "Clock" to do..is possible for the "Clockmaker"
Fin
I know a couple of magicians who can get the penny without popping the bullion, but they will not tell me how to do it. 😄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thank you for the answer kind sir..So essentially what you mean is that within this "reality" in which we exist..
It is only possible for us to go through the balloon..to get to the penny.
This is an absolute truth to us. Seeing as how we don't have control nor do we have the ability to create a reality where "not" going through the balloon would be possible. Simple stuff to understand.
A clock doesn't have the ability to take itself apart/reset itself, or change it's specific usage..
However the "Clockmaker does"
What is impossible for the "Clock" to do..is possible for the "Clockmaker"
Fin
Yes I agree.... absolute truths can exist within one determined reality, but they are absolute only "relatively" to that reality, so those truths are not so absolute.
For me reality is defined by one individual perception of it, so maybe in your own individual way to perceive the balloon, the only way to get the penny is passing through the space defined by the balloon.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So is there a way or not..if so..give me some examples...The longer you dodge the question..the more you validate my position...
That's not true; by questioning the validity of the question they might be attacking the idea of an absolute. The only thing that validates your position is if someone gives an absolute answer that cannot be refuted. A point you will never reach, whob.
Like I said, the answer to a relatavist would be 'maybe'. Atlantis' answer above makes an assumption- that we live in such a reality. That assumption might be flawed so the answer is not absolute.
Since no one responded to this the first time: in the spirit of fair and stimulating debate, I will repost.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
All of these things could be wrong as a result of our flawed perceptions.
If our perceptions are flawed, then, for consistency, this would include the perception, "our perceptions are flawed," which certainly invites circular reasoning.
Put another way: you seem absolutely certain these perceptions could be flawed.
Also--and I ask this with all due respect--are you open to the possibility of an absolute proof? Because, if your philosophy believes all things are relative, without exception (itself an absolute), then perhaps we should simply shake hands and agree to disagree. If you are open, then you do accept the notion that absolutes exist.
No, I am not certain at all, it is merely a possibility.
And please read the thread properly- this is something I have been having to remind people of a lot lately. *I* am not a relatavist. I am simply explaining why you can never logically destroy the sceptical argument that any relatavist can fall back to if you try and philisophically undermine his/her position.
But a relatavist would say that there would be no certainty involved in any so-called absolute proof you presented, no.
And it is a logical flaw to believe that the core of their belief is an absolute; they do not present it as such. Any attempt you make to establish it as one can simply be doubted as due to either faulty perception or faulty reasoning, and they only accept possibilities, not certainties.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I am not certain at all, it is merely a possibility.And please read the thread properly- this is something I have been having to remind people of a lot lately. *I* am not a relatavist. I am simply explaining why you can never logically destroy the sceptical argument that any relatavist can fall back to if you try and philisophically undermine his/her position.
But a relatavist would say that there would be no certainty involved in any so-called absolute proof you presented, no.
And it is a logical flaw to believe that the core of their belief is an absolute; they do not present it as such. Any attempt you make to establish it as one can simply be doubted as due to either faulty perception or faulty reasoning, and they only accept possibilities, not certainties.
"All things are relative," is a statement of absolute. "Some things..." would be relative. The statement "absolutes may be a result of flawed perceptions" begs the question, How do we trust that statement?
For someone who claims others do not pay attention, you yourself (IMO) have yet to directly address what I raised in my previous post. Neither have you explained the "logical flaw" you mentioned above.
Actually I paid attention just fine, you are simply not gripping what I say.
You cannot prove the existance of absolutes in the first place, so saying that anything a relativist says is an absolute statement is futile. But in any case, their point is that all things MIGHT be relative; you cannot categorically state them as absolute.
As I continually say- you cannot logically show the absolute to them to refute this.
And you can't trust the statement. So what? The more you say that sort of thing, the more you will simply feed into the idea. That reasoning will not help you one tiny bit.
You simply cannot win this argument, either of you. All tools of logic and rationality you wish to try and win it with might simply be doubted and then you are nowhere.
Originally posted by Mindship
If our perceptions are flawed, then, for consistency, this would include the perception, "our perceptions are flawed," which certainly invites circular reasoning.Put another way: you seem absolutely certain these perceptions could be flawed.
Also--and I ask this with all due respect--are you open to the possibility of an absolute proof? Because, if your philosophy believes all things are relative, without exception (itself an absolute), then perhaps we should simply shake hands and agree to disagree. If you are open, then you do accept the notion that absolutes exist.
Perhaps not all perceptions are flawed, and the perception "our perceptions are flawed" does only refers to some perceptions, but probably like Ushgarak said, his statement was not absolute since he is a relativist.
Anyway, I think it is our perceptions that define reality, so it doesn´t matter if they are flawed or not since things can just be flawed(true or false) in reference to some absolute reality. See... in this sense flawed is a relative thing, to be flawed does not mean to be absolutely wrong, it does only means that a individual perception do not corresponds to a individual reality.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually I paid attention just fine, you are simply not gripping what I say.You cannot prove the existence of absolutes in the first place, so saying that anything a relativist says is an absolute statement is futile. But in any case, their point is that all things MIGHT be relative.
As I continually say- you cannot logically show the absolute to them to refute this.
And you can't trust the statement. So what? The more you say that sort of thing, the more you will simply feed into the idea. That reasoning will not help you one tiny bit.
You simply cannot win this argument, either of you. All tools of logic and rationality you wish to try and win it with might simply be doubted and then you are nowhere.
First Absolute
You cannot prove the existance of absolutes in the first place
Second Absolute
all things MIGHT be relative
And you can't trust the statement. So what?
It's the basis for your point of view
Third Absolute
You simply cannot win this argument, either of you. All tools of logic and rationality you wish to try and win it with might simply be doubted and then you are nowhere.
I just picked out what I thought were the most obvious ones.
Case closed.
The last statement was a comment from me, actually, not a relatavist one.
But the others are still futile because you still have not grasped this. Pay attention.
First of all, you are making an assumption about what an absolute is. That might be wrong.
Secondly, you are making an assumption that these conditions make something an absolute. That might be wrong.
Thirdly, the sceptic has no reason to accept your logic as being in any way superior or correct. Your perceptions and reasoning might be flawed so as to make your entire logical process void. There may not even be any such thing as a logical process; it might simply be a vaguery of our perceptions.
So meanwhile, our relativist is here with you saying these things at him, trying to persuade him. As far as he is concerned, the internet, the computer and yourself might not even exist and these are just figments of his imagination trying to alter his perception so that he accepts something as logical and true when it might not be.
So he rejects what you say as being absolutely.
Fourthly... I think it defies sense by ANY system to call "All things might be relative" an absolute statement; the use of the word 'might' casts any absolute into doubt; define that as absolute and you may as well define everything as absolute and then the term is pointless.
Fifthly- if you cannot prove the existance of absolutes... then trying to say that that sentence is in itself an absolute is clearly stupid because you haven't defined what an absolute is yet in order to make that so. As soon as you do try and define it, that is open to doubt, as is any proof you try and give, and so it doesn't work. Hence you cannot prove that that statement is an absolute.
And hah! A 'case closed'. That's the same kind of juvenile comment whob makes in order to try and win his arguments before they get demolished again. It won't work, I am afraid.
Absolutely! All is pointless if people don't make these assumptions. Hence whob trying to make out that these are assumptions science makes, thereby making science a faith just like religion, is pointless because they are assumptions EVERYONE makes, not just scientists, and everything else is defined AFTER those assumptions are made.
Meanwhile, though, you still won't be able to prove that these assumptions are true to a relatavist. Whob is trying to do just that, I am explaining why he can't.