Relativity and Absolute Truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pm
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".
Considering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.
Eo,

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.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:02 am Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:33 pm This seems a little confused. In the context of the topic title, relative truth is relative to something; it's a sort of comparison. Absolute truth, on the other hand, either includes its own context, or doesn't require context (🤔🤔🤔). And what I just wrote hasn't even started with 'truth', but only with the adjectives you've appended to it.

But I cannot see that your words in any way lead to the conclusion that absolute truth exists.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:00 pm If all is context then context is absolute given context both:

1. context is dependent on context
2. and as dependent on context, ie self-referential, is effectively "no-thing" as nothing exists outside of context to give it contrast.

Absolute truth is thus context but context means no-thing therefore absolute truth is no-thing, ie an absence of thingness.
I don't think that "all is context". I do think that no statement/proposition/etc can be fully expressed — and thereby understood — without including its context, in full. In the final analysis, this says — quite correctly, IMO — that the context of anything is everything: Life, the Universe, and Everything; all of it.

But all is not context. Context gives clarification to any and all concepts, but it (context) is not the concept that is being referred to. Context is the environment, if you will, of the concept under discussion. The concept is not fully described without its context, but this doesn't mean the context takes over, or swamps, the meaning of the concept. The concept is all, because that's the thing under discussion.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by CHNOPS »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pm
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".
Considering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.
That is the same that saying:

"If all truth are relative, then "all truth are relative" is an absolute truth".

You still confusing with the same paradoxs over and over.

When you say "all truth are relative", this moment of saying that, is just an interaction between matter.

I dont know how to explained this to you. And I dont speak english very well.

But I want to say something that:

All knowledge are thoughts... and thoughts are interactions of matter/or whatever you believe is the substance of the universe.

So, in one moment you need to understand that, in order to say something about "knowledge".

When you say "all truth are relative", then, there is an interaction of matter, and that is relative.... because is not always true...

When there arent that interaction, then, there is no true anymore.

In order to be "context" there must to be at least 2 things. So, the existence of "context" is relative to this interaction of 2 things.


If I say that "there are interactions", it seems that that is a absolute truth, but is not, is just true from de 1 seg of the universe to the final seg of the universe.

Is not always true.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pm
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".
Considering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.
Eo,

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.
You see that is where I have trouble with your point, I see what you are saying though.

My problem is this:

1. If one can only know context then context is absolute thus absolute truth exists.
2. If biology is fallible, and you as an organism are stating this, then the statement "biology is fallible" is fallible.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:07 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:02 am Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:33 pm This seems a little confused. In the context of the topic title, relative truth is relative to something; it's a sort of comparison. Absolute truth, on the other hand, either includes its own context, or doesn't require context (🤔🤔🤔). And what I just wrote hasn't even started with 'truth', but only with the adjectives you've appended to it.

But I cannot see that your words in any way lead to the conclusion that absolute truth exists.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:00 pm If all is context then context is absolute given context both:

1. context is dependent on context
2. and as dependent on context, ie self-referential, is effectively "no-thing" as nothing exists outside of context to give it contrast.

Absolute truth is thus context but context means no-thing therefore absolute truth is no-thing, ie an absence of thingness.
I don't think that "all is context". I do think that no statement/proposition/etc can be fully expressed — and thereby understood — without including its context, in full. In the final analysis, this says — quite correctly, IMO — that the context of anything is everything: Life, the Universe, and Everything; all of it.

But all is not context. Context gives clarification to any and all concepts, but it (context) is not the concept that is being referred to. Context is the environment, if you will, of the concept under discussion. The concept is not fully described without its context, but this doesn't mean the context takes over, or swamps, the meaning of the concept. The concept is all, because that's the thing under discussion.
A concept is a distinction though and as a distinction is a context as it is that through which something exists. Things exist through concepts.

However I agree to your point "that the context of anything is everything". This point can be delved into deeper. Anything results in the context of everything thus the context of anything results in the context of everything and we result in the statement: "context occurs through context". Given context occurs through context the term "context", as well as the reality of "context", means nothing because of its self-referentiality allows for nothing to which to compare. This comparison is necessary for any substance, through form, to occur.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pm
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".
Considering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.
That is the same that saying:

"If all truth are relative, then "all truth are relative" is an absolute truth".

You still confusing with the same paradoxs over and over.

When you say "all truth are relative", this moment of saying that, is just an interaction between matter.

I dont know how to explained this to you. And I dont speak english very well.

But I want to say something that:

All knowledge are thoughts... and thoughts are interactions of matter/or whatever you believe is the substance of the universe.

So, in one moment you need to understand that, in order to say something about "knowledge".

When you say "all truth are relative", then, there is an interaction of matter, and that is relative.... because is not always true...

When there arent that interaction, then, there is no true anymore.

In order to be "context" there must to be at least 2 things. So, the existence of "context" is relative to this interaction of 2 things.


If I say that "there are interactions", it seems that that is a absolute truth, but is not, is just true from de 1 seg of the universe to the final seg of the universe.

Is not always true.
I am not confusing the above with paradox, I am saying all is paradox (and the absence of paradoxes in the relative nature of reality is a paradox as well considering they stand in contrast to what is paradoxical).
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:06 pm

Considering context is constant and only context exists we know the phenomenon known as "context" as absolute truth.
Eo,

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.
You see that is where I have trouble with your point, I see what you are saying though.

My problem is this:

1. If one can only know context then context is absolute thus absolute truth exists.
2. If biology is fallible, and you as an organism are stating this, then the statement "biology is fallible" is fallible.
Eodnhoj7,

Context in philosophy is object/energy, while biological consciousness is subject, another rather personal energy form. Unlike ourselves other forms of energy we don't tend to believe are conscious, for us that property belongs solely to life-form objects. We as these life form objects are really part of context/ the world as object. We are context aware of itself, and this is what Schopenhauer meant when he said, subject and object stand or fall together." So, in this sense, your are right on the money, for subject and object are one, we are aware of our context and part of it at the same time, so yes, context is absolute with at least an element/life, conscious of it. There is no separation here, subject and object are one, and the parts of something that is one, are relative to one another, and relativity is mutual reactions is one.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:55 am

Eo,

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.
You see that is where I have trouble with your point, I see what you are saying though.

My problem is this:

1. If one can only know context then context is absolute thus absolute truth exists.
2. If biology is fallible, and you as an organism are stating this, then the statement "biology is fallible" is fallible.
Eodnhoj7,

Context in philosophy is object/energy, while biological consciousness is subject, another rather personal energy form. Unlike ourselves other forms of energy we don't tend to believe are conscious, for us that property belongs solely to life-form objects. We as these life form objects are really part of context/ the world as object. We are context aware of itself, and this is what Schopenhauer meant when he said, subject and object stand or fall together." So, in this sense, your are right on the money, for subject and object are one, we are aware of our context and part of it at the same time, so yes, context is absolute with at least an element/life, conscious of it. There is no separation here, subject and object are one, and the parts of something that is one, are relative to one another, and relativity is mutual reactions is one.
1. In observing the subject as a subject we create an object as we give subject form.
2. And the paradox ensues given the dichotomy of subject/object are illusions, under monism, we result in a dualism of reality and illusion.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

The union of subject and object gives one apparent reality. It is said in the eastern traditions that duality is an illusion but the world is an open system and just perhaps, the cosmos as we know it is an open system. The essence of relativity is the union of subject and object itself. Apparent reality is a biological effect/reaction to the energies of the cosmos. Reality is a biological readout ,just as you would put sums into an adding machine, the energies the body receives like sums gives the readout apparent reality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:21 pm The union of subject and object gives one apparent reality. It is said in the eastern traditions that duality is an illusion but the world is an open system and just perhaps, the cosmos as we know it is an open system. The essence of relativity is the union of subject and object itself. Apparent reality is a biological effect/reaction to the energies of the cosmos. Reality is a biological readout ,just as you would put sums into an adding machine, the energies the body receives like sums gives the readout apparent reality.
And biology is a conception resulting from the same interaction of atoms/fields that form what is biological, the same thing which forms biology is the the same thing which forms what is not biological. Biology is a context and as a context is a starting point of measurement...there is no rules for where to start a measurement thus biology, or anything else for that matter, is one of many explanations.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

Biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, and we can only know the physical world on a subjective level, we cannot step outside ourselves to see what biology does not tell us.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:05 pm Biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, and we can only know the physical world on a subjective level, we cannot step outside ourselves to see what biology does not tell us.
Then the above is a subjective statement and not objective considering it from a biological entity.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:44 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:05 pm Biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, and we can only know the physical world on a subjective level, we cannot step outside ourselves to see what biology does not tell us.
Then the above is a subjective statement and not objective considering it from a biological entity.
Eodnhoj7,
It is a subjective statement on my part a reaction to the question at hand, but to you, it is a statement made by an object/me in your environment for even my own body is an object in my environment, that I experience on a subjective level. You will measure the meaning and worth of my subjective statement that you are experiencing on a subjective level. Again, biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, after which you can bestow that meaning upon a meaningless world. All meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object. Apparent reality, is biological experience.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:44 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:05 pm Biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, and we can only know the physical world on a subjective level, we cannot step outside ourselves to see what biology does not tell us.
Then the above is a subjective statement and not objective considering it from a biological entity.
Eodnhoj7,
It is a subjective statement on my part a reaction to the question at hand, but to you, it is a statement made by an object/me in your environment for even my own body is an object in my environment, that I experience on a subjective level. You will measure the meaning and worth of my subjective statement that you are experiencing on a subjective level. Again, biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, after which you can bestow that meaning upon a meaningless world. All meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object. Apparent reality, is biological experience.
This is where I disagree: You cannot seperate non-biological realities from consciousness as consciousness is broken down to only being interactions. In these respects all reality is conscious.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Relativity and Absolute Truth

Post by popeye1945 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:19 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:44 pm

Then the above is a subjective statement and not objective considering it from a biological entity.
Eodnhoj7,
It is a subjective statement on my part a reaction to the question at hand, but to you, it is a statement made by an object/me in your environment for even my own body is an object in my environment, that I experience on a subjective level. You will measure the meaning and worth of my subjective statement that you are experiencing on a subjective level. Again, biology is the measure and meaning of all things on a subjective level, after which you can bestow that meaning upon a meaningless world. All meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object. Apparent reality, is biological experience.
This is where I disagree: You cannot seperate non-biological realities from consciousness as consciousness is broken down to only being interactions. In these respects all reality is conscious.
I am speaking of our subjective reality, our apparent reality, subjectivity being the only means we have of knowing the physical world. The old saying that subject and object stand or fall together means, if you take one away the other ceases to be. Without a conscious subject, there is nothing.
Post Reply