Eo,Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pmConsidering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:22 pm The laws of physics tell us about a relative truth, for example "the atoms truth".
That means that "if you have an atom, we know how it interact with others atoms".
But that is always a relative truth, because is relative to "atoms".
Without atoms, for example with individual particles, that laws is no more true. You find another law, "the particle truth". And so and on.
With humans, for example, we are form of atoms, so, maybe you can find EXTENSIONS of "the atoms truth", and therefore find a new "the human laws".
For example, "humans cannot fly". That is a relative true. Is true for humans.
But in that law of humans, it still apply the laws of atoms. So, in order to "humans cannot fly", it must be consistent with "the atoms truth".
One can say that "hummans cannot fly" is an absolute truth because it doesnt change. I mean, that relative truth doesnt change, is always true. Is always true that if you are a human then you cannot fly.
But that is not correct. Because, who is the one who says that that relative truth doesnt change? There is no one.
Is like we imagine a "super observer" that doesnt exist, to see the universe like if we can observe it from that "super observer".
And then says that "human cannot fly is a relative truth that is absolute because it is relative to this "super observer" that i am who is eternal and never die, so, that relative true is relative to this "super observer" and that doesnt change".
That is wrong.
There is no "super observer", all knowledge is a relation between 2 objects. And all the objects have a end.
So, there is no relative truth that are relative to another thing. There are just relative truth.
We invent a "super observer" and then we talk about "objetive reality" or "absolut truth".
One can only know context, the physical world subjectively through our biological experience of it, to be absolute, biology would have to be infallible, which it is not.