Originally posted by Lord Urizen
AS for Change.....So far there are no known constants we are aware of, OTHER than change.
Does constant=absolute? Change seems to occur constantly, but does it? Or is it constant only from our perspective? Is it change only from our perspective? We must define change to totally examine whether it can be shown to be constant. Are we speaking more along the lines of inconsistency and not change?
This was being written while your last was Urizen, I haven't thought about whether your post effects my comments or not yet
Okay Janus, I have another BS example of how the fact "1+1=2" can be contradicted, therefore creating an exception.......
There is a baseball game. ,The price is based on 1 seat per person.
This means:
1 seat = 1 person
1 person = 1 seat
A Saimese Twin asks for tickets to come to this game. By most definitions, a Saimese Twin consists of TWO people not one. However, they only need one seat. (Because in this case, the saimese twin share the same body, but have 2 heads)
So they buy the tickets. Since they are two people, they have to pay for two seats, when they only need one.
According to the price options: 1 person +1 person = 2 seats, since a single seat is registered as equivalent to a single person.
However, the twins' look of this* matter is that 1 person+1person=1 seat.
But if you go by the price options only, then 1+1 = 2, and in thier point of view the twins are arguing that in THIS case 1+1=2
Remeber* Since 1 seat is equivalent to 1 person according to price options, a person and a seat are of same value.
SORRY**** had to CORRECT argument
Okay Janus, I have another BS example of how the fact "1+1=2" can be contradicted, therefore creating an exception.......
There is a baseball game. ,The price is based on 1 seat per person.
This means:
1 seat = 1 person
1 person = 1 seat
A Saimese Twin asks for tickets to come to this game. By most definitions, a Saimese Twin consists of TWO people not one. However, they only need one seat. (Because in this case, the saimese twin share the same body, but have 2 heads)
So they buy the tickets. Since they are two people, they have to pay for two seats, when they only need one.
According to the price options: 1 person +1 person = 2 seats, since a single seat is registered as equivalent to a single person.
However, the twins' look of this* matter is that 1 person+1person=1 seat.
But if you go by the price options only, then 1+1 = 2, and in thier point of view the twins are arguing that in THIS case 1+1=1
Remeber* Since 1 seat is equivalent to 1 person according to price options, a person and a seat are of same value.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
this supports my FIRST beleif.There is an exception to every rule.
And I am not denying it, in fact, that sentence is an interesting way to understand what can be know about absolute truths. I mean, if your rule "There is an exception to every rule" is false, then it means that there must be an rule that has no exception, or in other words, an absolute rule. So absolutes will exist even if we deny that rule. If we say that your rule is true then that rule itself is an absolute. In both cases absolutes are necessary.
But we cannot imply that absolutes must exist by that reason. I mean, to conclude that we need to use logic, so that will only be true by the point of view of logic. We do not know if logic is absolute.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
And I am not denying it, in fact, that sentence is an interesting way to understand what can be know about absolute truths. I mean, if your rule "There is an exception to every rule" is false, then it means that there must be an rule that has no exception, or in other words, an absolute rule. So absolutes will exist even if we deny that rule. If we say that your rule is true then that rule itself is an absolute. In both cases absolutes are necessary.But we cannot imply that absolutes must exist by that reason. I mean, to conclude that we need to use logic, so that will only be true by the point of view of logic. We do not know if logic is absolute.
No we don't know. Logic basically means observation and reasoning, meaning that we have to figure things out.
Since not all people judge by logic, it seems not everyone beleives that Logic is the absolutely correct perspective.
I still beleive, however, that from everything I know so far, Change has been the only Constant from the beginning of recorded history.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hmm...I can I sum up my stance here....Janus, great points BTW ! 👆
I certainly try.
First off, I said i BELEIVE there are only Two Absolute Truths. I am not claiming that as facts. I have no way of proving OR disproving it, but that's the fun in debating how true or how false this can be.
Fair enough. I took the position that you believed the two to be absolute truths, and I went with that. You can believe in them, but I don't.
I should have written that I beleive there is an"Exception to every rule"
1+1=2 is not a rule, it's a fact.
Are you certain? A mathematical problem is a symbolic argument presented in proper form in accordance with agreed upon rules. Therefore, it is not a fact any more than "My cat has grey fur, this is grey hairs in my drink, therefore my cat got fur in my drink" is a fact. The math is only as good as the values you plug into it, assuming that they reflect reality properly. However, when I indicated the math problem, I was pointing out that there aren't "exceptions to everything". And when it comes to rules, this is again arguing from ignorance; you do not know all of the rules. You cannot apply an absolute generalization without having absolute knowledge. Period.
However, if you look at this through more than a literal point of view, you can come up with a few examples (even if they are stupid ones) to that would present an exception to even THIS solid fact.
But it's not a fact; it's a product of rules. Ergo, you should be able to find the exception without resorting to semantics.
There are two people. One is a "normal" adult man, and the other is a female Siamese twin. Now if you add these two people together by thier physical being, then you have 1 person + 1 person = 2 people.However, if you add them together by thier Psychological being you 1 + 1+ 1 = 3. So even when you add two bodies together, you end up with 3 people.
Semantics. A Swiamese twin is essentially two people in one body. This does not prove to be the exception to the universal concept of one plus one equals two. Unless you can prove an instance in which one entity and another entity would not equate two numerically. I don't see that happening.
Now lets say one of the Siamese Twins is in a coma. If you define a person by "a being who is self aware", then you add the siamese twin with the normal adult, and you have 2 people right ?But...that doesnt make sense? Don't you have 3 people ? A normal separate person, and two people fused together?
Again, pointless semantics. You are focusing on something entirely different. I gave you a mathematical equation. Every time you present it in that form, it should come out to two. Period. It does. QED. If the entities you are adding are sentient beings, then one sentient being plus another will always be two. And if they are ever merged, then they cease to be separate entities, and the equation is not proper for us in that case. Simple.
I know this example may be WAY OFF....but it still kind of confuses the absolute truth that One + One equals Two. Ofcourse from a purely Mathematical perspective 1+1=2. But from a million other perspectives? There is an exception somewhere, even if its a "bulls*hit" one.
No, that's not the case. The rules involved are the rules of basic arithematic. If someone adds one and one and gets something other than two, it's time to put the bottle down.
AS for Change.....So far there are no known constants we are aware of, OTHER than change.
Which is why the definition for constant somehow gives us this:
Something that is unchanging or invariable
^ That would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Change by its very nature is in motion. Unchanging and invariable by its very nature is not moving or changing. So obviously, change can't be constant.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Are you certain? A mathematical problem is a symbolic argument presented in proper form in accordance with agreed upon rules. Therefore, it is not a fact any more than "My cat has grey fur, this is grey hairs in my drink, therefore my cat got fur in my drink" is a fact. The math is only as good as the values you plug into it, assuming that they reflect reality properly. However, when I indicated the math problem, I was pointing out that there aren't "exceptions to everything". And when it comes to rules, this is again arguing from ignorance; you do not know all of the rules. You cannot apply an absolute generalization without having absolute knowledge. Period..
1+1=2 is not a RULE itself though. So it's based on accepted rules, and these rules are accepted as reprenting reality, and therefore is rendered "fact".
1 + 1...two numerals with a self evident value. Lookin at this from ONLY a mathematical eye, they will always equal 2.
However, I still beleive that if you look at this from more than ONE perspective, that "1" can represent anything you choose it to, depending on what you would count as the value.
That is why i brought up the Siamese Twins example, as stupid as they were.
A Siamese Twin is self evidently two people, but one body.
If there were "no way out rules" that said ONE SEAT per PERSON, even though the twins who share the same body only need one seat, they would end up being sold 2 seats.
I'll continue this with your next comments.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
But it's not a fact; it's a product of rules. Ergo, you should be able to find the exception without resorting to semantics.
If it's a product of rules, and not fact, then you are saying that 1 + 1= 2 is not fact. Therefore it is subject to "intepretation" which only contradicts it as an "absolute"
Again, we have to examine who set the rules that produced this answer, and how valid are these rules. We have to know if these rules are flawless.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Semantics. A Swiamese twin is essentially two people in one body. This does not prove to be the exception to the universal concept of one plus one equals two. Unless you can prove an instance in which one entity and another entity would not equate two numerically. I don't see that happening.
You and I understand that "fact" very well. But if someone defines a Siamese twin in its ENTIRELY.....as a Single Unit...
Then the single unit that is the Siamese Twin consists of:
1) Two minds
2) One body
3) Possibly two souls ?
4) Two points of view
5) Two faces
6) One KIND of face (in terms of features etc)
7) Two Opinions
8) They may share one organ such as heart, brain, etc. depending on the type of deformality of the situation.
9) ETC.
Although you and I know that they are two people, not one, someone who values the physical more than the mental aspect of a person may count them as one body Or the one shared brain = one person.
You even said yourself that the product of rules that is 1 + 1 = 2, is not fact.
So if "1 + 1=2" is not fact, then how can we say that "Siamese Twins are two people, not one" is fact ?
You said it depends on the reality behind the rules.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
[B]Again, pointless semantics. You are focusing on something entirely different. I gave you a mathematical equation. Every time you present it in that form, it should come out to two. Period. It does. QED. If the entities you are adding are sentient beings, then one sentient being plus another will always be two. And if they are ever merged, then they cease to be separate entities, and the equation is not proper for us in that case. SimpleB]
Yes..keyword...in THAT FORM. If we lived in a PURELY mathematical world, one free of philosophy, imagination, art, religion, logic, etc.
Then there would only be ONE way to look at it, a mathematical way.
"1 + 1 = 2" is not simply a mathematical equation, UNLESS set up as only "1 + 1 = 2" in thier numeral equation form.
If I said it as "one plus one equals two", that can apply to more things than just the equation.
Again the BS example, I could say that one person plus one person equals two bodies...end of story, and someone can say "wrong...somtimes one person plus one person equals one body, since siamese twins exist"
OR if I am religious, I can say "one soul plus one soul equals two souls"
But what if souls don't exist? To a person who doesn't beleive in the concept of a Soul, : "one soul plus one soul equals NOTHING"
OR
Someone can say "one woman plus one man equals one relationship"..someone else can easily say "nope...sometimes one man woman equals NO relationship....they are just messing around"
It all depends what object the VALUE of one represents, and if this object is a single unit OR something more complicated.
Pointless Semantics ? Nah, i thnk its another way of looking at the SAME THING.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Mindship:
lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.
But doesn't "reality is relative" then become an absolute? 😛
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Which is why the definition for constant somehow gives us this:Something that is unchanging or invariable
^ That would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Change by its very nature is in motion. Unchanging and invariable by its very nature is not moving or changing. So obviously, change can't be constant.
I get what you are saying, and reading what you said with the words you had put it in, it makes perfect sense.
However,
There is no Law that says a Constant cannot move forward with time.
A constant cannot travel through TIME ? What would you call tradition then ? Bad habits ? Addictions ?
I call these "wannabe constants"
These are examples of "constants" something that is unchanging but that is being carried forward through time.
However, notice how I left out the "invariable"....bad habits, tradition, and addictions are always variable in atleast the slightest degrees.
This would convince me that a "constant" does not exist.
However, something that is continuous is constant. Evolution, if you beleive in it, religion, growth, learning etc.
But since none of these are absolute, nor unchanging, then they are not constants.
All of these things are subject to either some sort of change, or some sort of dying out.
The ONLY thing, so far, that is guaranteed to continue on forever is CHANGE.
I know its an oxymoron, but that does not make it invalid. Oxymorons exist in reality as well.
Originally posted by Regret
Does constant=absolute? Change seems to occur constantly, but does it? Or is it constant only from our perspective? Is it change only from our perspective? We must define change to totally examine whether it can be shown to be constant. Are we speaking more along the lines of inconsistency and not change?This was being written while your last was Urizen, I haven't thought about whether your post effects my comments or not yet
This is actually a great question, i should have answered before.
I beleive constant to only exist in terms of a continous truth that follows us through time from the past, at this present, and to the future.
Since nothing in life is absolute and immortal at the same time, then nothing is truly "constant" in terms of something being absolute.
Everything changes as time progresses, so the ONLY known constant is change itself.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1+1=2 is not a RULE itself though. So it's based on accepted rules, and these rules are accepted as reprenting reality, and therefore is rendered "fact".1 + 1...two numerals with a self evident value. Lookin at this from ONLY a mathematical eye, they will always equal 2.
However, I still beleive that if you look at this from more than ONE perspective, that "1" can represent anything you choose it to, depending on what you would count as the value.
That is why i brought up the Siamese Twins example, as stupid as they were.
A Siamese Twin is self evidently two people, but one body.
If there were "no way out rules" that said ONE SEAT per PERSON, even though the twins who share the same body only need one seat, they would end up being sold 2 seats.
I'll continue this with your next comments.
If it's a product of rules, and not fact, then you are saying that 1 + 1= 2 is not fact. Therefore it is subject to "intepretation" which only contradicts it as an "absolute"
Again, we have to examine who set the rules that produced this answer, and how valid are these rules. We have to know if these rules are flawless.
You and I understand that "fact" very well. But if someone defines a Siamese twin in its ENTIRELY.....as a Single Unit...
Then the single unit that is the Siamese Twin consists of:
1) Two minds
2) One body
3) Possibly two souls ?
4) Two points of view
5) Two faces
6) One KIND of face (in terms of features etc)
7) Two Opinions
8) They may share one organ such as heart, brain, etc. depending on the type of deformality of the situation.
9) ETC.Although you and I know that they are two people, not one, someone who values the physical more than the mental aspect of a person may count them as one body Or the one shared brain = one person.
You even said yourself that the product of rules that is 1 + 1 = 2, is not fact.
So if "1 + 1=2" is not fact, then how can we say that "Siamese Twins are two people, not one" is fact ?
You said it depends on the reality behind the rules.
Yes..keyword...in THAT FORM. If we lived in a PURELY mathematical world, one free of philosophy, imagination, art, religion, logic, etc.
Then there would only be ONE way to look at it, a mathematical way.
"1 + 1 = 2" is not simply a mathematical equation, UNLESS set up as only "1 + 1 = 2" in thier numeral equation form.
If I said it as "one plus one equals two", that can apply to more things than just the equation.
Again the BS example, I could say that one person plus one person equals two bodies...end of story, and someone can say "wrong...somtimes one person plus one person equals one body, since siamese twins exist"
OR if I am religious, I can say "one soul plus one soul equals two souls"
But what if souls don't exist? To a person who doesn't beleive in the concept of a Soul, : "one soul plus one soul equals NOTHING"OR
Someone can say "one woman plus one man equals one relationship"..someone else can easily say "nope...sometimes one man woman equals NO relationship....they are just messing around"
It all depends what object the VALUE of one represents, and if this object is a single unit OR something more complicated.
Pointless Semantics ? Nah, i thnk its another way of looking at the SAME THING.
^ Firstly, to address this. This post is the longest and most drawn out lack of an agrument I've ever seen. The above is pure filibuster. You did not address the point nor did you get past the very simple fact that:
addition, fundamental operation of arithmetic, denoted by +. In counting, a+b represents the number of items in the union of two collections having no common members (disjoint sets), having respectively a and b members. In geometry a+b might, for example, represent the area of the union of two disjoint regions of areas a and b, respectively. In arithmetic addition follows the associative law, the commutative law, and, in combination with multiplication, the distributive law.
Addition itself is in accordance with laws. Laws are rules. Period. When you said there are exceptions to every rule, you failed to address that the act of adding one and one to make two is a rule-bound event. You cannot change the rules and get a different value, because then it would not be the rule of addition. Clear? The rule states very clearly that the product of two single entities will be two entities (grouped). There are NO exceptions to this. Your semantic filibuster is not a proper answer to my point.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I get what you are saying, and reading what you said with the words you had put it in, it makes perfect sense.
^ That should have been the end of your reply.
However,
^ This is where you went wrong.
There is no Law that says a Constant cannot move forward with time.
WTF?
Something that is unchanging or invariable.
By this above definition (One that best points to the absoluteness of what it is to be constant), something cannot change. It must remain the same. Now, by the most absolute definition, this means the object cannot even move forward in time; it is completely stationary. Completely unmoved. Really, it is nothing you can imagine properly, because it exists outside of the realm of causation, being unaffected by everything. An absolute constant would be by definition, a god or an object outside of space-time entirely.
In the weaker version of the definition (One not allowing for radical things like the above), something that is constant is unchanging even though it exists in space-time. In this case, time would move, but that would be the only real change, and it would not affect the nature of the object itself because the object is by definition constant.
A constant cannot travel through TIME ? What would you call tradition then ? Bad habits ? Addictions ?
Tradition? WTF are you talking about?
I call these "wannabe constants"
I call this wannabe rhetoric.
These are examples of "constants" something that is unchanging but that is being carried forward through time.
Traditions, bad habits, and addictions do not exist outside of the human mind (that is, they are only given a nature because human beings use them, ascribe values to them, and they come from the human mind. The rest of nature does not have these things as we do). Because of this, you cannot prove any rule of invariableness using human social constructs. That would be like saying "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and citing dictatorships as the ultimate answer, totally overlooking the fact that this earth looks entirely different from what it did millions of years ago, proving that outside of humanity, apparently that catchphrase means jackshit.
However, notice how I left out the "invariable"....bad habits, tradition, and addictions are always variable in atleast the slightest degrees.
You focus on the wrong subject matter entirely. I ask you for proof of these things in nature, not just in human nature. And really, the idea that bad habits and tradition are constants is a completely subjective opinion, not based on cold hard fact but one's own take on history and human events. Hardly proof.
This would convince me that a "constant" does not exist.
Oi.
However, something that is continuous is constant. Evolution, if you beleive in it, religion, growth, learning etc.
Is it? Is continuity an absolute value of being constant? I ask you this: how can something be the same if it's working in cycles of change? It can't. Period.
But since none of these are absolute, nor unchanging, then they are not constants.
All of these things are subject to either some sort of change, or some sort of dying out.
Uh huh.
The ONLY thing, so far, that is guaranteed to continue on forever is CHANGE.
This is again, arguing out of ignorance. For all you know, the universe could be hit with some sort of cosmic event that renders all change to a halt, freezing the very atoms of everything in place forever. This would be the very definition of antichange. And since you don't have the knowledge to rule that out (Even the stretch that it is), you can't make an absolute judgement that change is continuous.
I know its an oxymoron, but that does not make it invalid. Oxymorons exist in reality as well.
They do, huh? Funny. Name some.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Excuse me while I pose this question that perhaps one of you will have an answer to:
Since we are talking about 'absolute truth' wouldnt it be necessary to define 'truth'? What is 'truth'? Isnt it all a matter of perspective? Subjective?
H'mm.
First, I would define "Truth," in this context, as (and there are countless other adjectives which could be applied) the Ultimate/Absolute/Infinite Condition which subsumes but transcends all other conditions. Whether it is "God," change, impenetratible quantum foam, fractal universes in an unending regression; whatever, it is the Be-All and End-All, such that to pursue the question, "What is Truth?" is meaningless, as the Exception merely becomes part of that Ultimate Condition (God, I hope that was clear).
As far as human interaction/perception of this Truth is concerned, that does not change the nature of the Truth; the only variable is how each person perceives/interprets this Ultimate Condition. But this Condition Itself is not dependent, in its Ultimatehood, upon us. To assume otherwise, IMO, strikes me as the height of human hubris/arrogance.
Further, if every person perceives/interprets this Truth differently, then That, in itself, becomes an absolute when considering humans and the Truth.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.GV:
Janus, I am arguing by YOUR own logic here.
Did you NOT say that Reality is all relative to the person observing it?
did you not also say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact, but a PRODUCT based on RULES?
And did you not also say that Rules depend on the Reality behind them ?
If I am mistaken on your points, then I severely apologize and would kindly ask you to clarify your stance on what Reality is and what Rules actually are in relation to "facts".
If 1+1=2 , is not a fact, but only a product of rules (like you've stated yourself) then how can we be so sure about the reality behind these rules, if reality is only relative to our observation of such things? You know that observation is variable to all eyes.
You are also forgetting that numbers do not exist by themselves. Every value (1, 0, 2, N, X, Y, 3, 4.5) is always representative of an object. All I am saying is when you replace and object with a numeral, you ahve to be "absolutely"-that damn word again- Certain that the objects the numerals represent are in fact equal to each other in all ways.
You are basically saying that Math is an Absolute Truth, and you are suggesting that Math is independent of real-life examples. You said there is no "Absolute Truth", since one would need to acqure absolute knowledge to know absolute truth. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. You are also suggesting, according to my intepretation of what you are saying, that Math can exist without having to represent anything else but ITSELF. Please correct me if I am misunderstood here, thank you.
If there is no "absolute truth" like you said there is none that can be said to be so far, then Math and its rules cannot be absolute truth either according to your logic. If this is the case, and there is no absolute then Exceptions exist most likely.
As for our interesting "CHANGE is the only constant" debate:
So far we have come to the conclusion, or atleast I think I have, that a true "constant" does not exist.
According to your definition a constant is "unchangable and invariable"...so let us forget my other examples, like tradition, etc. because they are not true constants.
Also you are saying that just because something is continuous, does NOT mean it is not constant. Okay let's argue through that logic:
Can you think of any Constant that has existed from as far back in the Past, up to TODAY, that will remain constant until the "end" of time?
I beleive Change to be the only "constant"...."Ahhh Lord Urizen...u just dont get it do you ????" 😠
Yes, i do let me explain:
For Change to be different from ITSELf, there would have to be a LACK of change. Change would have to cease to be. Therefore "Change" is changed into another concept- non change.
Would that turn Change into it's "opposite" which is a "constant" ? In some logical perspectives, YES.
But look at it this way: A constant according to your definition displayed is "unchangable", is TRUE to itself, it will remain as IS, it will not change what it actually is.
Change can ONLY BE UNCHANGING and TRUE TO ITSELF if it REMAINS as it IS: Change. IF Change becomes a non-change, then it is changingitself , meaning that this would render it a non-constant.
So...Change is only a non-constant if it becomes non-change.
Therefore, through other logic, one can say "The only true constant is change".
Janus, thank you for giving such a challenge of a debate. No one has ever forced me to think and question THIS MUCH. Thank you for that ! 🙂