Relativity and Absolute Truth

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah, the context is secondary.

What is the primary context is "experience" of reality.
Thus the fundamental should be grounded on experience-of-things which leads to justified knowledge of such experiences.

We cannot separate experience in this case from things as given.
There is no independent thing-in-itself that is experienced, it always the imperative combination experience-of-things.

What is truth is dependent on the specific Framework and System established to verify and justify the experience-of-things which cannot be absolutely absolute but has to be conditional.

Thus scientific truths are truths that are only true and conditional upon the Scientific Framework and such truth cannot be absolute and stand on itself.
Other Framework and Systems [e.g. Mathematical, legal, economic, social, etc.] will generate and justify the specific kind of truth.

How one can rely on such relative truths will depend on their confidence levels based on the credibility of the respective Framework and System.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nah, the context is secondary.

What is the primary context is "experience" of reality.
Thus the fundamental should be grounded on experience-of-things which leads to justified knowledge of such experiences.

We cannot separate experience in this case from things as given.
There is no independent thing-in-itself that is experienced, it always the imperative combination experience-of-things.

What is truth is dependent on the specific Framework and System established to verify and justify the experience-of-things which cannot be absolutely absolute but has to be conditional.

Thus scientific truths are truths that are only true and conditional upon the Scientific Framework and such truth cannot be absolute and stand on itself.
Other Framework and Systems [e.g. Mathematical, legal, economic, social, etc.] will generate and justify the specific kind of truth.

How one can rely on such relative truths will depend on their confidence levels based on the credibility of the respective Framework and System.

The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another.

[Skepdick]

Nah, the context is secondary.

What is the primary context is "experience" of reality.
There is no independent thing-in-itself that is experienced,

Dimwit. Reality is the context in which experience happens.

If there weren't stimuli then you wouldn't experience anything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah, the context is secondary.

What is the primary context is "experience" of reality.
There is no independent thing-in-itself that is experienced,

Dimwit. Reality is the context in which experience happens.

If there weren't stimuli then you wouldn't experience anything.

Dumb as usual, show me where is the real-reality [stimuli] that is the context for experience.
What you are asserting is very obvious common sense or knowledge of the "vulgar" which the majority of people will agree, but that is not philosophy of the really-real.

If one see an apple on the table, yes the eyes are stimulated and triggered an experience of sighting an apple.
But is there a really-real apple or table out there?

Note Russell's [mine];

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions [of reality] are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

The fact is there is no way, you can prove there is a really-real stimuli [table] in this case that triggered the experience.
What is most certain, what the individual human have is his "experience" which can be shared by all generic humans inferring some sort of inferred object out there and the corresponding knowledge which can be useful.

[Impenitent]

the best really reels catch fabulous fishies (relative to the wonderful worms...)

-Imp

[popeye1945]

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.

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

[CHNOPS]

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.

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

Yes.

We have all similar brains, so we have similar experience and knowledge.

But what we know for sure, is that is you have the same same brain as me, then you have the same same experience and knowledge.


The Theory of Relativism of Einstein explain this. The movements are relatives to diferents observers, but that rule, that equation that say what happens if you are a X kind of observer, is true always.


For x then y.

For z then w.

But x then y is always true, and z then w is always true.

[popeye1945]

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.

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

Yes.

We have all similar brains, so we have similar experience and knowledge.
But what we know for sure, is that is you have the same same brain as me, then you have the same same experience and knowledge.
The Theory of Relativism of Einstein explain this. The movements are relatives to diferents observers, but that rule, that equation that say what happens if you are a X kind of observer, is true always.
For x then y. For z then w. But x then y is always true, and z then w is always true.

The essence of relativity is the union of subject and object, even relativity is meaningless in the absence of a biological subject. All meaning belongs solely to a conscious subject and never the physical world as an object, until the subject bestows meaning upon the meaningless world.

[CHNOPS]

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

Yes.

We have all similar brains, so we have similar experience and knowledge.
But what we know for sure, is that is you have the same same brain as me, then you have the same same experience and knowledge.
The Theory of Relativism of Einstein explain this. The movements are relatives to diferents observers, but that rule, that equation that say what happens if you are a X kind of observer, is true always.
For x then y. For z then w. But x then y is always true, and z then w is always true.

The essence of relativity is the union of subject and object, even relativity is meaningless in the absence of a biological subject. All meaning belongs solely to a conscious subject and never the physical world as an object, until the subject bestows meaning upon the meaningless world.

Oh, I just said someting to complete what you have said, but now I think we dont agree in some point.

A biological subject is the same as the physical world.

The relativity says what happens when you have X structure of matter, biological or not, conscious or not.

When you "see" or "hear", you have X structure of matter, so, you have Z relations of matter.

When you have atoms, you have X structure of matter, so, you have Z relations of matter.


There is no difference at all.

[popeye1945]

Yes.

We have all similar brains, so we have similar experience and knowledge.
But what we know for sure, is that is you have the same same brain as me, then you have the same same experience and knowledge.
The Theory of Relativism of Einstein explain this. The movements are relatives to diferents observers, but that rule, that equation that say what happens if you are a X kind of observer, is true always.
For x then y. For z then w. But x then y is always true, and z then w is always true.

The essence of relativity is the union of subject and object, even relativity is meaningless in the absence of a biological subject. All meaning belongs solely to a conscious subject and never the physical world as an object, until the subject bestows meaning upon the meaningless world.

Oh, I just said something to complete what you have said, but now I think we don't agree in some point.

A biological subject is the same as the physical world.

The relativity says what happens when you have X structure of matter, biological or not, conscious or not.

When you "see" or "hear", you have X structure of matter, so, you have Z relations of matter.

When you have atoms, you have X structure of matter, so, you have Z relations of matter.


There is no difference at all.

CHNOPS,

If this is your way of saying that subject and object are inseparable I agree. It is only sometimes referred to as a separation in order to point out the relation that ties apparent reality together.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

1. But "truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology" is an absolute statement; anything which is "always" is absolute as it is unchanging. This is absolute and it is a truth.

2. This leads to another paradox: "Universal relativity" is an absolute truth as it is unchanging and stands on its own considering being is relative to being thus only being exists furthermore making being absolute. Dually, if everything is relative this truth is absolute as context is absolute; there only exists context.

3. There exist a variety of phenomena. Biology is one of these phenomenon. In observing the primary root of the relationships between many phenomenon anything can be chosen as there are no rules as to where to start a judgement. Biology is one root cause. Psychology is another. Math is another. Economics is another. Spirituality is another. Chemistry, which is a root of biology, is another. So on an so forth. Anything can be chosen as a starting point given one has justifications to follow it. Because anything can be chosen the nature of a root cause becomes ambiguous because it, ie the root cause, can equate to everything. Universal equanimity is no-thingness because there are no distinctions considering everything is the same.

[popeye1945]

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.

Eodnhoj7,
Truth is not absolute, truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology. What is fundamental is the relation of subject and object. Relativity is meaning as the interconnection of all things relative to one's biology. The only absolute is the inseparability of subject and object as the ultimate relativity. Truth to us is limited to our experience thus it is our everyday reality or apparent reality, a reactionary manifestation of the reactions of biology. There are two levels of reality, an apparent and ultimate and ultimate reality we have no access to we simply probe and poke at it with our limited knowledge of physics. To quote Schopenhauer on the nature of apparent reality, "When biology closes its eyes in death a world ceases to be." In other words, a subject has been subtracted from the relation between subject and object, and when that occurs the world as object ceases to be as well. Relativity is subject/object united and always the property of a conscious subject for all meaning is biological experience.

1. But "truth is experience/knowledge and is always relative to the state of one's biology" is an absolute statement; anything which is "always" is absolute as it is unchanging. This is absolute and it is a truth.

Truth to the individual is experience, truth to the group is agreement, neither of which is infallible. Second thought, fallibility or infallibility are both relative to biology thus, I guess you could say that biological readout is absolute, in that it is always true to the state of one's biology.


2. This leads to another paradox: "Universal relativity" is an absolute truth as it is unchanging and stands on its own considering being is relative to being thus only being exists furthermore making being absolute. Dually, if everything is relative this truth is absolute as context is absolute; there only exists context. [/quote]

You need to define context. Apparent reality is a subjective experience creating its own context as a biological readout of the energies affecting the body. As stated in modern physics, ultimate reality is a place of no things, nothing but energies in other words.

3. There exist a variety of phenomena. Biology is one of these phenomenon. In observing the primary root of the relationships between many phenomenon anything can be chosen as there are no rules as to where to start a judgement. Biology is one root cause. Psychology is another. Math is another. Economics is another. Spirituality is another. Chemistry, which is a root of biology, is another. So on an so forth. Anything can be chosen as a starting point given one has justifications to follow it. Because anything can be chosen the nature of a root cause becomes ambiguous because it, ie the root cause, can equate to everything. Universal equanimity is no-thingness because there are no distinctions considering everything is the same.
[/quote]

There is only one root cause and that is the relation between subject and object, the energies of ultimate reality affect biological consciousness giving experience/meaning/knowledge. In the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is meaningless, it can only become meaningful through meaning being bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. All your above qualifications are of a biological origin.

[CHNOPS]

Even "existing" is relative.

Relative to that what exists...

If that existing thing disapear, now "existing" es false.

Without universe, nothing is "true".


Obviously...

[Age]

Nah, the context is secondary.

What is the primary context is "experience" of reality.
There is no independent thing-in-itself that is experienced,

Dimwit. Reality is the context in which experience happens.

If there weren't stimuli then you wouldn't experience anything.

Dumb as usual, show me where is the real-reality [stimuli] that is the context for experience.

The WHOLE Universe.

It is the BIGGEST SHOW there is.

How much MORE PROOF do you ACTUALLY NEED?

What you are asserting is very obvious common sense or knowledge of the "vulgar" which the majority of people will agree, but that is not philosophy of the really-real.

The term 'philosophy of the really-real' is about as useful as it REALLY does first appear.

If one see an apple on the table, yes the eyes are stimulated and triggered an experience of sighting an apple.
But is there a really-real apple or table out there?

If there IS what is called 'an apple' 'on the table', then there IS an apple on the table.

Note Russell's [mine];

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions [of reality] are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.

OF COURSE 'hypotheses' may not be true.

By their very nature, and by their OWN definition, they may not be true. This is because they are NOT meant to be necessarily true.

Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.

If you agree with and accept that 'it' is 'a table', then, to you, 'it' is a table. FULL STOP.

The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

How can you SUPPOSEDLY 'know' this, but you can NEVER 'know' that 'it' is 'a table'?

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

And you tell us you do not even know what 'it' is.

The fact is there is no way, you can prove there is a really-real stimuli [table] in this case that triggered the experience.

Yes I CAN.

That is by 'the thoughts' that arose.

Now, OF COURSE 'the thoughts' could be Wrong, in and of themselves, but the Fact that 'thoughts' arose PROVES that they have been stimulated by some 'thing' ELSE. Or, are you under some sort of illusion that 'thoughts' can exist entirely on their own, and thus it is 'thought', which is created 'thought'?

What is most certain, what the individual human have is his "experience" which can be shared by all generic humans inferring some sort of inferred object out there and the corresponding knowledge which can be useful.

So, you are CERTAIN that there are OTHER external human beings stimulating OTHER human beings, but that there is NO CERTAINTY that there is absolutely ANY thing else, other than different human beings.

The SELF-CONTRADICTING and SELF-REFUTING claim here is Truly OBVIOUS, well to me anyway.