Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Well, Philisophical Scepticism, the argument the relatavist can use is, yes. I make that point constantly in my threads; such scepticism is completely useless; it has no value other than being the page one starting point in philosophy, which you then very quickly move on from.

Descartes said 90% of what is important about the subject and only a few vaguely interesting things have been said about it ever since- mostly to do with our perception of reality, which is a more speciaised area that is more open to ideas.

But it still buggers the idea of trying to logically prove absolutes. All you can do with absolutes ia assume them- as I hope we all do.

Yup, it makes no sense since we can just prove things if there is an absolute reality.... "prove" is relative too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes. Open the end of the balloon and let the penny drop out.

Bad logic..your still going through the "Balloon" to get to the "Penny"

Regardless of whether you Pop, untie, run over with a car, etc..the first "obstacle" one must go through..is taking down the BALLOON itself...😆

So I ask of you all again..what measure could one take...

without going through the "Balloon" to get to the "Penny"?

So far you all haven't given me an adequate answer...

Originally posted by Lana
....that's an oxymoron 😛

Indeed it is. But you can speak about everything being relative as something absolute, from the certain point of view at last.

Well, ok, I'll give you one. A relatavist might believe in a theory of spatial location whereby location is an illusion of our perception, so that the coin is already as much in his hand as it is in the balloon. If he knew how to exploit this properly, the coin might be in his hand without him ever seeing the balloon in his life.

A more enterpirsing relatavist from the future might use time travel to make sure the coin isn't in the balloon in the first place.

You couldn't even get workable hypotheses as to the possibilities of these things. But they are conceivable, and so a relatavist would not absolutely discount their possibility.

And yes Ush, we need absolutes. At one time I questioned all values, and it ended in heavy depression for me.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
And yes Ush, we need absolutes. At one time I questioned all values, and it ended in heavy depression for me.

We don't need absolutes; we need agreed upon points of reference or benchmarks. Maybe these are absolute and maybe they are not.

To bad to be a nihilist ? Well, fortunately or unfortunately I can´t believe in some absolutes, I always have doubts... I always find a way to find a contradiction to beat my own argument.

I personally tend to lean more towards relativism, because you cannot prove something to be 100% absolute, and because everyone's perceptions differ. But I also recognize that some things can be assumed to be true.

Then again, I've always been one to question everything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We don't need absolutes; we need agreed upon points of reference or benchmarks. Maybe these are absolute and maybe they are not.

Damnit ! You found another problem... Are points of reference absolute ? 😕

Well, I think there is some absolutes, but they are more subjective things, that requires intuition, and sincerity... these absolutes are more like feelings, than logical concepts, and reasoning. They are like a meaning we give to some word, or the sensation that comes from the meaning we give.

Anyway, those absolutes would be like personal intuitions, or perceptions and should be understood by what your intuition makes you think about what I am talking about, not exactly by the logical analysis of the text I´m writing... its like poetry, or music perhaps. It is to get the feeling behind something.... at least thats how I can define it using words, but the real meaning lies in the "meaning", the sensation.. not the words I used, since words depend on logic, and logic is limited.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, ok, I'll give you one. A relatavist might believe in a theory of spatial location whereby location is an illusion of our perception, so that the coin is already as much in his hand as it is in the balloon. If he knew how to exploit this properly, the coin might be in his hand without him ever seeing the balloon in his life.

lol..A relativist can make up anything to support their argument..that's why its such a childish and illogical way to go about gathering information...or coming up with an objective conclusion. Particularly in Science. When conducting an experiment..can you imagine how impossible it would be for a relativist to come up with a result to a simple equation such as 2+2= 4

Ex

Relativistic Thinking Scientist: Well maybe it equals 5..or what if my perception of 2 isn't really 2..perhaps the number 2 is really just an illusion that my senses perceive..

Imagine how far off we would have been in the areas of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, Genetics..if a scientist couldn't get past the fundemental concept of 2 + 2 = 4.

Moving on..all of this would be relevant..if of course, an individual actually demonstrated in the real world...the ABILITY to actually make the coin appear in his hand after it was in the balloon..unfortunately..this hasn't been the case my friend. This hasn't happened in "REALITY" Unless you can give me a specific example of where this has occured.

A more enterpirsing relatavist from the future might use time travel to make sure the coin isn't in the balloon in the first place.

lol..Time travel..you've been watching to many "Back to the future" movies my friend. Again..Give me an example, one that has been OBSERVED and documented to happen in Real life..of a human being..being able to go back in time. Give me evidence..not silly philosophy, fantasy, and conjecture.

You couldn't even get workable hypotheses as to the possibilities of these things. But they are conceivable, and so a relatavist would not absolutely discount their possibility.

Our REALITY is without an individual going through the balloon..we can't get to the penny. This is real to us. This is ABSOLUTE to us. Now unless you can provide proof of human beings able to do these things...I believe its pretty safe bet to say that logic points to these things not being possible to do..at least by someone/something that is subjected to the laws that govern the REALITY in which we exist.

However if you want to start talking about the "Supernatural"..then I believe we should be opening up an entirely different thread.

Let me go ahead and bring the intial question posed down another level..seeing as how many of you like to play silly semantical games..

Essentially the balloon question/city/state question..all boils down to this

How does one get to the center of a 3 dimensional object..without actually going through the object?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Imagine how far off we would have been in the areas of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, Genetics..if a scientist couldn't get past the fundemental concept of 2 + 2 = 4.

Well, I doing a major on physics, and I know that in modern days scientists normally agree that 2+2=4 is not a absolute truth, they know that it only depends on how you define the basic premises, if they say it is absolute they are wrong. On the contrary ancient scientists not always accepted new kinds of logic, for they it was like if 2+2=4 was absolute, Gauss togheter with his student Riemann was the first mathematician to oppose this reasoning and he begun to study(not officially) new kinds of logic and geometries, the famous "non-euclidean geometries". There is some of these geometries in which addition is defined diferently. A good example is restricted relativity where velocities are not always added to each other.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Well, I doing a major on physics, and I know that in modern days scientists normally agree that 2+2=4 is not a absolute truth, they know that it only depends on how you define the basic premises, if they say it is absolute they are wrong. On the contrary ancient scientists not always accepted new kinds of logic, for they it was like if 2+2=4 was absolute, Gauss togheter with his student Riemann was the first mathematician to oppose this reasoning and he begun to study(not officially) new kinds of logic and geometries, the famous "non-euclidean geometries". There is some of these geometries in which addition is defined diferently. A good example is restricted relativity where velocities are not always added to each other.

lol..restricted "relativity" is an oxymoron..because essentially what the relativist is doing..is acknowledging the existence of "some" absolutes..
So anyway..a person who ascribes to "restricted relativity" is not really a true "relavist."

One who delves into the philosophy of "complete relativity.".is still delving into the range of stupidity..because even if one acknowledges that "everything" is relative..there still affirming an absolute truth...that truth being "everything is relative"..it's circular logic..and self defeating..

Why do you think that when philosophy debates are held..they use an "absolute model" not a relatvistic one to debate by. There would be no decided victor to that type of debate..really can you all not see how silly the whole "Relativity" philosophy sounds..at least when applied to us human beings. Until you all start demonstrating the ability to walk on water, fly up in the air...teleport and travel back in time. Then I'm not buying the "Everything is relative..there are no absolutes" tripe.

damn..and you all label Christians as being the ones who are close minded, have faith in fantasy and supernatural..lol..guess you all were wrong..😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..restricted "relativity" is an oxymoron..because essentially what the relativist is doing..is acknowledging the existence of "some" absolutes..
So anyway..a person who ascribes to "restricted relativity" is not really a true "relavist."

One who delves into the philosophy of "complete relativity.".is still delving into the range of stupidity..because even if one acknowledges that "everything" is relative..there still affirming an absolute truth...that truth being "everything is relative"..it's circular logic..and self defeating..

Why do you think that when philosophy debates are held..they use an "absolute model" not a relatvistic one to debate by. There would be no decided victor to that type of debate..really can you all not see how silly the whole "Relativity" philosophy sounds..at least when applied to is human beings. Until you all start demonstrating the ability to walk on water, fly up in the air...teleport and travel back in time. Then I'm not buying the "Everything is relative..there are no absolutes" tripe.

damn..and you all label Christians as being the ones who are close minded, have faith in fantasy and supernatural..lol..guess you all were wrong..😆

Not yet wrong... 😄

Restricted relativity is not treated like an absolute truth, scientists recognize that it fails at some situations. Every scientific theory has limited validity, they are not absolute. It is only truth relatively to certain specific conditions... like the balloon.

Absolutes cannot be proved, they must be believed... believing depends on a persons opinion, so basically absolutes depend on opinion. To say that absolutes depends on opinion seems a lot like the definition of relativism.

I have come up with proof of an absolute.

Without question, everyone on this thread will agree that Whobdamandog’s stubbornness is absolute. 😆 😆

Dude, you either don't understand Ush, or you are just being a Edit - troll. Especially with your little laughing smiley which only makes your point look foolish - just as all those three full stops makes it hard to read.

You are attempting to make it look like science is faith-based, when it clearly is not. Also, the point of many philosophical arguments is that there is no victor, since it is simply whether one agrees with the premises of an argument. Look at Anselm's explanation for the existence of God;
Premise 1:
God is the greatest conceivable being
Premise 2.
Some things exist in reality and some in understanding only
Premise 3.
Things that exist in reality are greater than those which exist in understanding alone
Conclusion:
God must exist in both understanding and reality.

Philosophical discussions are often based around the premises of an argument - your absolutes. if the absolutes are correct, the conclusion is logically true. It is the debate of the premises to be correct that changes the conclusion. Unless you have a way to disprove the absolutes of science, why are you arguing against it?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Not yet wrong...

Restricted relativity is not treated like an absolute truth, scientists recognize that it fails at some situations. Every scientific theory has limited validity, they are not absolute. It is only truth relatively to certain specific conditions... like the balloon.

If a scientist makes a comment such as

"I am a limited relativist, however..I don't believe that limited relativism is an absolute concept"

Then he is a moron..because he's asserting that he is indeed a true relativist. Seeing as how he has just asserted that he views everything that makes up life..from a moral/natural/etc standpoint..from a subjective viewpoint.

Now if a scientist states...

"I only believe in moral relativism..however..I believe that the natural world is made up of objective truths"

Then one could classify him as a "limited relativist"

Again..that's an oxymoronic term..seeing as how if he were truly a relativist..then he wouldn't believe in absolutes.

Absolutes cannot be proved, they must be believed... believing depends on a persons opinion, so basically absolutes depend on opinion. To say that absolutes depends on opinion seems a lot like the definition of relativism.

Actually they can be proved. Look around you..we live in a world full of written and natural absolutes.

The earth always revolves around the sun..

Gravity always keeps us stuck to the ground...if you jump out of a 3 story building..you are going to fall to the ground.

Our bodies need water/food in order for us to stay alive...if you don't eat and drink for at all for a long while..you are going to absolutely die.

If we die..we don't come back to life.(except if we are the creator of life...ie Jesus)

If we steal from someone..we are going to get put into jail..(at least if you are a minority or poor..😆😆)

These aren't merely opinions..these are facts my friend..

Go ahead and try these things for yourself..however..and if you do actually manage to come back from the dead..after being buried in a tomb for 3 days..then I promise you..I will have full faith in your position of "No absolutes" existing...and proclaim you to be my "lord and savior"

Fin.

Originally posted by Trickster
Dude, you either don't understand Ush, or you are just being a Edit - troll. Especially with your little laughing smiley which only makes your point look foolish - just as all those three full stops makes it hard to read.

I understand exactly what Ush is saying...but what he/others are stating is so ridiculous..and so out there..it's almost scary. I feel compelled to respond to the man each time.

Everything that Ush has posted in this thread..is prefaced by..

"Descartes said.."

The man is clearly indoctrinated with this "relativistic" philosophy...and believes that the words of Descartes and others of like thought represent the "absolute truth."

You are attempting to make it look like science is faith-based, when it clearly is not. Also, the point of many philosophical arguments is that there is no victor, since it is simply whether one agrees with the premises of an argument. Look at Anselm's explanation for the existence of God;
Premise 1:
God is the greatest conceivable being
Premise 2.
Some things exist in reality and some in understanding only
Premise 3.
Things that exist in reality are greater than those which exist in understanding alone
Conclusion:
God must exist in both understanding and reality.

Philosophical discussions are often based around the premises of an argument - your absolutes. if the absolutes are correct, the conclusion is logically true. It is the debate of the premises to be correct that changes the conclusion. Unless you have a way to disprove the absolutes of science, why are you arguing against it?

So we're in agreement..of course they're based on the premises of an argument..and "logical truths"..how the hell could they be based on "relativistic opinions."

(note..that's an oxymoronic statement above..in theory..one shouldn't be able to base anything off of anything else in relativity..since there are "no absolutes"😉

Anyway..as I stated before..there would not be anyway to bring an argument to a conclusion, if there were no "absolute premise" to an argument.

Example Scenario of two relativists during a debate:

Relativist 1: You only perceive that I am wrong..I could be right...
Relativist 2: True..however..your perception could be flawed..I could be correct..

Repeat this scenario 1000 times..and each and every other statement will be the same as these two lines.