Well they are absolute to us within this reality..and this reality is the only thing we have to base our opinions off of.
Regardless of how much one speculates about the existence of other universes/realities/etc..doesn't change the fact that we are subjected to abide by the laws/rules/etc that govern this one.
Fin
"I was referring to the term RELATIVIST as it is applied to science. Perhaps we should just use the categories to denote which type we are talking about..even though it is a bit oxymoronic..clear?"
No, you're still wrong. A scientist believing in relativity still has no different approach to the scientific method. Your statement makes no sense.
"The concept of relativism is applied to sceintific theory..yes?"
No. What gave you that idea? Science is an attempt to discover facts, but scientific theory can never be certain. Scientists don't deny absolutes exist, they just deny our capacity to be sure we have gotten them right, so instead we aim for a 'best-we-can-do' approach.
"We can call the force gravity. We can call it something else. Doesn't change the fact that a force exists that will pull us to the ground if we jump out a window. Simple stuff to understand."
Yes, but we don't understand the force, and a relatavist would say that again, everything we know about it is a matter of perception that might be flawed. One thing is for sure- we cannot prove anything absolutely about it. We can observe its effect but we can never be certain that it will always be like that because we do not fully understand it; until then, all we have are assumptions- assunptions that it will indeed work the same way each time. That assumption might be likely- but 'likely' is not 'certain'.
"Exactly which completely invalidates the concept of "COMPLETE RELATIVISM"
As I've stated multiple times..it doesn't matter how many times a relativist poses a question or doubts a concept. It changes nothing that we know to be true."
Irrelevant. As already pointed out, it is not about changing anything. And you don't KNOW anything to be true. Everything you think is true, you have made an assumption about. You might be wrong. You BELIEVE you are right, but that is no guarantee of anything. So hoew in the heck does it invalidate the concept? That is a non sequitur; you have stated it as if so when what you say around it simply does not lead to that conclusion.
"How about you explain to me..how yours/others opinions..is going to change a man from falling to the ground after jumping from a window. If you can give me an example of how this would indeed happen. Something that can be observed.. "
It'snot going to chamnge that- if indeed it is happening at all, which you cannot absolutely prove.
Why does whether it changes it or not have anything to do with anything? As I keep telling you, this is all about belief.
Observations are, again, totally irrelevant- they are, of course, just perceptions.
"Because you say it is based on my perceptions..it does not make it so..I don't doubt. It has been proven time and time again that if an individual jumps out a window...they will fall to the ground. You may perceive this not to be true..still doesn't change anything."
What YOU do or do not doubt does not change anything. All proof is based on perceptions that might be flawed. You just saying all this ios true, regardless of how much evidence or proof you have, is not an absolute guarantee of anything, because it might all be a mistake.
I have already given you the examples of how percpetions can be flawed. Therefore, any premise built on percpetions might also be flawed. Hence the sceptic can doubt it. If you don't doubt it- that;s simply your issue; it does not alter the position of the sceptic and still means that you have not undemrined their stance.
Your repetition of that sentence simply made yourself twice as irrelevant.
"So looking into it..doesn't make it nonsense? How does one being a scientist..some how justify an idea as being legit? Phrenologists are scientests..so are Astrologers and Graphologists..are those considered credible Sciences? come on now...Parallel realities is clearly delving into the the area of science ficition..not science fact..it's real silly stuff."
Aside from the fact that scepticism is not a science, it is a philisophical belief, I will again simply point out that whether something ha an application or not is totally irrelevant. We are not, here, talking about how useful anything is.
"And based on this objective evidence..we can conclude that parallel realities exist..
That doesn't sound like a leap of faith to you?"
It's a very complicated area of which you clearly have no knowledge, but people with far better knowledge that you have accepted the possibility. It is at very early stages, but your outright denial of it is simply evidence of close-mindedness.
"Well they are absolute to us within this reality"
Another assumption. You think they are; that does not mean they are.
All this and you still haven't grasped the base of the whole concept. You will never win, whob. Again, you will never logically prove the existence of absolutes, because to do so you have to prove the existance of absolutes.
The sceptic will continue to doubt, and you will continue to flounder here, as more and more people see no value in your arguments, and plenty in those of others.
And yes, another laughable report there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"I was referring to the term RELATIVIST as it is applied to science. Perhaps we should just use the categories to denote which type we are talking about..even though it is a bit oxymoronic..clear?"No, you're still wrong. A scientist believing in relativity still has no different approach to the scientific method. Your statement makes no sense.
"The concept of relativism is applied to sceintific theory..yes?"
No. What gave you that idea? Science is an attempt to discover facts, but scientific theory can never be certain. Scientists don't deny absolutes exist, they just deny our capacity to be sure we have gotten them right, so instead we aim for a 'best-we-can-do' approach.
"We can call the force gravity. We can call it something else. Doesn't change the fact that a force exists that will pull us to the ground if we jump out a window. Simple stuff to understand."
Yes, but we don't understand the force, and a relatavist would say that again, everything we know about it is a matter of perception that might be flawed. One thing is for sure- we cannot prove anything absolutely about it. We can observe its effect but we can never be certain that it will always be like that because we do not fully understand it; until then, all we have are assumptions- assunptions that it will indeed work the same way each time. That assumption might be likely- but 'likely' is not 'certain'.
"Exactly which completely invalidates the concept of "COMPLETE RELATIVISM"
As I've stated multiple times..it doesn't matter how many times a relativist poses a question or doubts a concept. It changes nothing that we know to be true."
Irrelevant. As already pointed out, it is not about changing anything. And you don't KNOW anything to be true. Everything you think is true, you have made an assumption about. You might be wrong. You BELIEVE you are right, but that is no guarantee of anything. So hoew in the heck does it invalidate the concept? That is a non sequitur; you have stated it as if so when what you say around it simply does not lead to that conclusion.
"How about you explain to me..how yours/others opinions..is going to change a man from falling to the ground after jumping from a window. If you can give me an example of how this would indeed happen. Something that can be observed.. "
It'snot going to chamnge that- if indeed it is happening at all, which you cannot absolutely prove.
Why does whether it changes it or not have anything to do with anything? As I keep telling you, this is all about belief.
Observations are, again, totally irrelevant- they are, of course, just perceptions.
"Because you say it is based on my perceptions..it does not make it so..I don't doubt. It has been proven time and time again that if an individual jumps out a window...they will fall to the ground. You may perceive this not to be true..still doesn't change anything."
What YOU do or do not doubt does not change anything. All proof is based on perceptions that might be flawed. You just saying all this ios true, regardless of how much evidence or proof you have, is not an absolute guarantee of anything, because it might all be a mistake.
I have already given you the examples of how percpetions can be flawed. Therefore, any premise built on percpetions might also be flawed. Hence the sceptic can doubt it. If you don't doubt it- that;s simply your issue; it does not alter the position of the sceptic and still means that you have not undemrined their stance.
Your repetition of that sentence simply made yourself twice as irrelevant.
"So looking into it..doesn't make it nonsense? How does one being a scientist..some how justify an idea as being legit? Phrenologists are scientests..so are Astrologers and Graphologists..are those considered credible Sciences? come on now...Parallel realities is clearly delving into the the area of science ficition..not science fact..it's real silly stuff."
Aside from the fact that scepticism is not a science, it is a philisophical belief, I will again simply point out that whether something ha an application or not is totally irrelevant. We are not, here, talking about how useful anything is.
"And based on this objective evidence..we can conclude that parallel realities exist..
That doesn't sound like a leap of faith to you?"
It's a very complicated area of which you clearly have no knowledge, but people with far better knowledge that you have accepted the possibility. It is at very early stages, but your outright denial of it is simply evidence of close-mindedness.
"Well they are absolute to us within this reality"
Another assumption. You think they are; that does not mean they are.
All this and you still haven't grasped the base of the whole concept. You will never win, whob. Again, you will never logically prove the existence of absolutes, because to do so you have to prove the existance of absolutes.
The sceptic will continue to doubt, and you will continue to flounder here, as more and more people see no value in your arguments, and plenty in those of others.
And yes, another laughable report there.
EXCELLENT JOB!!
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I already have answered your question mutliple times. Nothing is assumed..we are subjected to various laws within this universe. That is a fact.
If nothing is assumed then there is no absolute.
If you say that it is a fact, then you must prove it, and you will need empiricism :
fact = A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct or disproved and thus shown to be incorrect.
empiricism = philosophical doctrine that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience.
The fact need to be proved. How do you prove that fact ? The only way is to assume empiricism as being true. You are the one who will assume empiricism, so its your perspective.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you're still wrong. A scientist believing in relatavity still has no different approach to the scientific method. Your statement makes no sense.
def relativism
n : (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
🙄
Never did I state that the scientific method was deemed to be "relative" ..however what I did assert was that much of Science today..is currently viewed from a RELATIVISTIC perspective, Rather than an ABSOLUTIST perspective. That has been my point in a nutshell. You know this..I've stated this in about every Evolution thread.
No. What gave you that idea? Science is an attempt to discover facts, but scientific theory can never be certain. Scientists don't deny absolutes exist, they just deny our capacity to be sure we have gotten them right, so instead we aim for a 'best-we-can-do' approach.
But Ush..I thought that the term "scientific fact" was an oxymoron? 😆 😆
Wasn't your opinion at one time.."There are no facts in science"
You can't have it both ways my friend..either absolutes/facts exist..or they do not. You have already stated in multiple threads already..that there are..
"no facts in science."
And That theories are viewed "subjectively" and constantly "evolving." This is relativistic approach to science my friend. How can you not see this?
I'm glad you are finally starting to see the light however, Science is indeed a search for facts..a search for ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Unfortunately..as I stated in another post..the possiblity of us understanding ABSOLUTE TRUTH in this lifetime is very slim. We have to first make the assumption that our finite little minds can handle the truth..which is a HUUUGE faith based assumption to begin with.
Yes, but we don't understand the force, and a relatavist would say that again, everything we know about it is a matter of perception that mihht be flawed.
Deosn't matter if we don't understand it. Doesn't mean that the force is still not there.
Again.
Your opinion/perception/doubts/etc do not change reality. Give me an example of how your opinion/perception/doubts/etc can effect reality we exist in..and as I stated before. I will without a doubt proclaim you as the victor of this argument..and declare you as being the "Supreme Authority of the Universe.
Irrelevant. As alreadyointed out, it is not about changing anything. And you don't KNOW anything to be true. Everything you think is true, you have made an assumption about. You might be wrong. You BELIEVE you are right, but that is no guarantee of anything.
lol..and my belief is supported by DUH..DUH..DUH..DUH..objective evidence!!!
Your belief is supported by..OPINION.
Your Speculation/Perception/Assumption/etc..does not change a thing..again..it's up to you to prove to me that it does!!!
It'snot going to chamnge that- if indeed it is happening at all, which you cannot absolutely prove.Why does whether it changes it or not have anything to do with anything? As I keep telling you, this is all about belief.
Observations are, again, totally irrelevant- they are, of course, just perceptions.
It has been absolutely proven..that if someone jumps out a window..they will fall to the ground.
Now you prove to me that an individual can defy the laws of gravity. This is up to you to do. I don't have to prove that this is not possible..you have to prove to me that it is..
What YOU do or do not doubt does not change anything.
Exactly..but you are alluding to the the ability to doubt/perceive/be sceptical can change something. We know this not to be the case my friend. Can you see how silly that sounds..
All proof is based on perceptions that might be flawed. You just saying all this ios true, regardless of how much evidence or proof you have, is not an absolute guarantee of anything, because it might all be a mistake.
In order to even determine that one's perceptions might be flawed..you would have to have COMPLETE knowledge of everything that made up ABSOLUTE truth. You do not. So its silly to even continue with this argument.
Again..PERCEPTION does not change REALITY
I have already given you the examples of how percpetions can be flawed. Therefore, any premise built on percpetions might also be flawed. Hence the sceptic can doubt it. If you don't doubt it- that;s simply your issue; it does not alter the position of the sceptic and still means that you have not undemrined their stance.
What power does a sceptic's doubt have over REALITY. You have not given me an example of this.
Your repetition of that sentence simply made yourself twice as irrelevant.
Ush..you've been repeating the same thing thoughout this entire thread..
That being..
"Because I can doubt you..your argument is not absolute..."
You still have yet to prove this assumption of having any validity to it..come on now my friend, which one of us is sound more irrelevant?
Aside from the fact that scepticism is not a science, it is a philisophical belief, I will again simply point out that whether something ha an application or not is totally irrelevant. We are not, here, talking about how useful anything is.
Never stated that scepticism was scientific..however I did allude to the path of "relativism" being a foolish way for modern science to travel down. Truths do exist. After much arguing in many threads..you've finally acknowledged this(take note..you were the one who initially stated that "absolutes/facts/etc not existing in science)
Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself now? But as I stated before..I am truly glad that you have seen the light..that light being..that Science should be the pursuit of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
It's a very complicated area of which you clearly have no knowledge, but people with far better knowledge that you have accepted the possibility. It is at very early stages, but your outright denial of it is simply evidence of close-mindedness.
LOL...I'm close minded now..I believe in "God" and the "Bible" but not believing in Aliens/Parallel worlds/ or travelling through time makes me close minded. Which one of us do you truly believe seems to be delving into the realm of fantasy? Really...ask yourself that question? I'm open minded to many things..but I know a cockoo science when I see one..
Another assumption. You think they are; that does not mean they are.
Well I know that they are ABSOLUTES for now..who knows..if I die..and go to heaven..maybe some of the ABSOLUTES that exist within this reality will no longer exist there. Who knows..the only thing I can be certain about are the things that I know to be true while I'm here.
All this and you still haven't grasped the base of the whole concept. You will never win, whob. Again, you will never logically prove the existence of absolutes, because to do so you have to prove the existance of absolutes.
You repeating this statement..doesn't make your point any less moot. My point has been proven. You have given no proof of an individuals ability to defy gravity..to rise from the dead..etc. I have given proof of humanity being "subjected" to these things. You are wrong. I am right. Nothing wrong with that. We can't win every argument.
And yes, another laughable report there.
Almost as laughable for someone issuing a warning..for labeling their thought process "relativistic" and then claiming that they can not argue with a mod in a thread about a topic..😆 😆
And on another note..could you please use the quote feature when you post..your posts are extremely difficult to read.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you're still wrong. A scientist believing in relatavity still has no different approach to the scientific method. Your statement makes no sense.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Whob
def relativismn : (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
In ancient times people just assumed that space, and time were absolute, they never proved it, it was just a philosophical metaphysical belief that no one argued against.
Relativity of space, and time is proved and it is observed, it has many applications nowadays all the nuclear physics are based on relativity... nuclear power, atomic bombs uses relativity. Relativity in also observed in astronomy, GPS, particle accelerators, and cosmic radiation that cames form the sky. Relativity is not a theory that is yet to be proved, it is as real as eletrodynamics, thermodynamics, mechanics, ...
Originally posted by Atlantis001
In ancient times people just assumed that space, and time were absolute, they never proved it, it was just a philosophical metaphysical belief that no one argued against.Relativity of space, and time is proved and it is observed, it has many applications nowadays all the nuclear physics are based on relativity... nuclear power, atomic bombs uses relativity. Relativity in also observed in astronomy, GPS, particle accelerators, and cosmic radiation that cames form the sky. Relativity is not a theory that is yet to be proved, it is as real as eletrodynamics, thermodynamics, mechanics, ...
I've never put down the notion that there is some degree of "RELATIVITY" to the laws that make of the Universe. My argument has been over who we apply the concept of "Relativity" too. We can not apply this concept to the ourselves. The power of our perceptions does not allow us to change Reality.
All of our attempts to even question the logic of such abstract concepts as Perception/Time/Space/etc will always be self defeating...since we don't have COMPLETE knowledge of what makes up these things...and there is no certainty that our "limited" minds could even handle such complex processes.
That's the flaw with Modern Relativistic/Skeptic philosophies. It is already assumed that we have the ABILITY to perceive the logic behind what makes up time/space/reality/perception etc. That is a HUUUGE assumption. An assumption that is just based on FAITH. Here's a quote from the man himself..Albert Einstein..
My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
Einstein knew that we have a "weak and transitory" understanding of the Universe. And he never even alludes to human beings..with our limited abilities, having the ABILITY to perceive/understand everything.
The faith based assumption that man has the capacity to understand everything..is what completely destroys any relativistic arguement. You can't point out a flaw in the process of something..if you don't completely understand how the process works.
Or to simplify things..I can't tell you if a clock is broken..if I don't even know how a clock works.
So who does Relativity apply to..well..let's look at Einstien's words again..
"Morality is of the highest importance--but for us not for God"
Why would you think that he would state that "morality" was only important to us. Because guess what? God created morality and all things that make up reality..therefore all these concepts are "relative" to what his perceptions are. Our perceptions have no effect on anything. What human has the ability to understand Absolute Truth? Or to change the future? To change the laws of gravity?
Answer: No Human perceptions/doubts/or skepticism can change these things. Only God can.
So what is "Absolute Truth"?
Answer: "Absolute Truth" is "God."
Therefore the true definition of science..really just boils down to this..
The search for "God."
I hope you all have learned something from this debate.
Fin.
Took me a while but I think I have an answer. To get a penny outside of a balloon without touching the balloon, you could quickly heat up the penny to such an extreme that it becomes a gas and comes out by itself. And don't feed me the logic of 'that's not possible, try again' or 'we don't have that technology'. We've gone from relying on horses and fire to using machinery and electricity in mere centuries. I doubt we'll be extinct before we could accomplish the aforementioned feat.
Why would you think that he would state that "morality" was only important to us. Because guess what? God created morality and all things that make up reality..therefore all these concepts are "relative" to what his perceptions are. Our perceptions have no effect on anything. What human has the ability to understand Absolute Truth? Or to change the future? To change the laws of gravity?
That only works if you believe in God. If someone doesn't, than all that flies out the window.
And are you seriously asking what human has the ability to change the future? Try everyone.
BTW, how many times are you going to post "fin" and then return to the thread?
Originally posted by crazylozer
Took me a while but I think I have an answer. To get a penny outside of a balloon without touching the balloon, you could quickly heat up the penny to such an extreme that it becomes a gas and comes out by itself. And don't feed me the logic of 'that's not possible, try again' or 'we don't have that technology'. We've gone from relying on horses and fire to using machinery and electricity in mere centuries. I doubt we'll be extinct before we could accomplish the aforementioned feat.
ehem..that's not possible try again...😆 😆
Seriously..it does sound a bit far fetched to me..but again..the question has been simplified to this one.
How do you get to the center of a 3 dimensional object..such a sphere..without going through it?
Give it a try.