The Contradiction of Relativity

[Age]

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

And, depending on how the observer is LOOKING, or from what perspective they are LOOKING FROM, then what is SEEN is relative, or objective.

There are MANY 'relative' observers, but there is ONLY One 'objective' Observer.

When ALL the 'relative' observers are IN agreement and acceptance, then what they are SEEING is thee One and ONLY 'objective' ACTUAL Truth. Thus, NO contradiction AT ALL here.

[Eodnhoj7]

No. If it is said that it is relatively false under certain contexts then this statement again is relative. So all is relative and saying "So all is relative." again is relative and saying ... infinite regress. If you make a statement about "all" then any subsequent statement about anything is again included in "all".


No. If it is said that it is relatively false under certain contexts then this statement again is relative. And saying "then it is always false under said contexts as said contexts are certain" is again relative. So all is relative and saying "So all is relative." again is relative and saying ... infinite regress. If you make a statement about "all" then any subsequent statement about anything is again included in "all".

Your fault is that you are desiring a final conclusion that isn't relative and you are erroneously thinking that your desire disproves "all is relative".


Oh my. Now you're trying to establish a metaphysical absolute truth about the statement "all is relative"

1. "All is relative including this statement" means that under certain contexts this statement is false given relativity necessitates one thing being true under one context and false under another. "All is relative including this statement" translated into a foreign language is meaningless to the person observing it who is not versed in said foreign language....thus the statement in meaningless and as meaningless is absent of truth. Falsity is the absence of truth.

Dually "all" is subject to context as it is open ended: "All of what?" "x?" "y?" "z?". If all of "x" is relative and what is not "x" is not relative then one version of "all" is relative and another version of "all" is not. "All" implies "all of being" but does not necessitate it. However let's stick with the first implication and state "all (of being) is relative including this statement". If all of being is relative then this is not only an unchanging absolute but "all of being" is relative to "all of being" thus necessitating a self-referential loop which is absolute as again it is unchanging. This contradicts the statement "all of being is relative" given this self-referential loop is not relative. To say this loop is relative is again to result in another loop then another loop so on and so forth thus making the loop as infinite and as infinite not relative. One must observe "all of being" as both relative and absolute and a paradox occurs.

Going back to the question of "all of what?" "All is relative including this statement" is thus incomplete, due to the potentiality of further contexts being applied, and open to further interpretation. As incomplete the statement is false because it is absent of further contexts necessary for it to be a meaningful statement. Its absence of meaning is an absence of truth value.

2. An infinite regress of relative truths makes relativity as an absolute as the infinite is unchanging; An infinite regress is an absolute truth.

3. "All is relative including this statement" necessitates "not all is relative including this statement" as statement 1 contains statement 2 as a subset of "all". "All" is thus paradoxical as it contains its negation as a part of "all"; thus to say "all is relative" is to also say "all is absolute" as "all is absolute" is a relative statement contained within "all is relative"....this is a contradiction unless one equivocates absoluteness to relativity given one is dependent upon the other. Relativity can thus be observed as an approximation of an absolute with this approximation necessitating the absolute existing through relative parts; ie the one contains many and the many summates as one.

All you are expressing is relative. Relative to what? Relative to your conceptual learning history. How is your conceptual learning history relative? It is relative to your culture, education, family, etc.

All is relative necessitates context as absolute. Absolute truth exists through context, context through relation, relation through connection. Absolute truth exists given various phenomenon connect with this connection showing similarities repeat across said multiple phenomenon.

This connection, as similarities, can be observed in the example of 2+2=3+1, both equations connect through there sums as 4. 4 is the common median. This can be observed further in a horse and blade of grass, both exist as composed of cells. "Cell" is the common median. This commonality, which allows various phenomenon to equivocate, further necessitates somethings are not relative as they are unchanging.

This aspect of unchanging implies various phenomenon as having common sources which remain the same no matter how they are expressed.

[simplicity]

This aspect of unchanging implies various phenomenon as having common sources which remain the same no matter how they are expressed.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

[Eodnhoj7]

This aspect of unchanging implies various phenomenon as having common sources which remain the same no matter how they are expressed.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

There are various phenomenon, which other phenomenon stem from, which are unchanging. This unchanging phenomenon is a common source for further phenomenon given this unchanging phenomenon underlies all of being or at least certain being(s). It underlies multiple phenomenon because it stays the same thus causing any changing contexts to revolve around the unchanging phenomenon. The unchanging phenomenon is a fixed point of observation thus causing any changes to be fixed around this angle.

For example the number 4 is unchanging. Various equations act as new contexts through how 4 is expressed, ie 1+3,2+2, 5-1,6-2,7-3...etc.. The unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer contexts with these contexts revolving around said unchanging phenomenon. Because certain phenomenon do not change this unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer and newer ways through different contexts with this unchanging phenomenon being the root of said differences. As a root of said differences there is a common median across various contexts by the fact said thing is unchanging. What is unchanging acts as an anchor point which ties seemingly different contexts together.

[simplicity]

This aspect of unchanging implies various phenomenon as having common sources which remain the same no matter how they are expressed.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

There are various phenomenon, which other phenomenon stem from, which are unchanging. This unchanging phenomenon is a common source for further phenomenon given this unchanging phenomenon underlies all of being or at least certain being(s). It underlies multiple phenomenon because it stays the same thus causing any changing contexts to revolve around the unchanging phenomenon. The unchanging phenomenon is a fixed point of observation thus causing any changes to be fixed around this angle.

For example the number 4 is unchanging. Various equations act as new contexts through how 4 is expressed, ie 1+3,2+2, 5-1,6-2,7-3...etc.. The unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer contexts with these contexts revolving around said unchanging phenomenon. Because certain phenomenon do not change this unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer and newer ways through different contexts with this unchanging phenomenon being the root of said differences. As a root of said differences there is a common median across various contexts by the fact said thing is unchanging. What is unchanging acts as an anchor point which ties seemingly different contexts together.

Using your example, which you maintain is unchanging, consider the following.

No concept is unchanging [nor do they actually exist]. Therefore, the number four is simply thought into existence. But even if it was real, it would not remain that way, that is, what four represents today is not what the system of mathematics will necessitate at some point in the future. In other words, one constant is that all things intellectual are transient. You simply must involve the key factor in intellectualism [time] to play in its role of arbiter.

There can be no primordial phenomenon, no base, no permanence in the intellectual sphere, as with permanence, the intellectual is void.

[Eodnhoj7]

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

There are various phenomenon, which other phenomenon stem from, which are unchanging. This unchanging phenomenon is a common source for further phenomenon given this unchanging phenomenon underlies all of being or at least certain being(s). It underlies multiple phenomenon because it stays the same thus causing any changing contexts to revolve around the unchanging phenomenon. The unchanging phenomenon is a fixed point of observation thus causing any changes to be fixed around this angle.

For example the number 4 is unchanging. Various equations act as new contexts through how 4 is expressed, ie 1+3,2+2, 5-1,6-2,7-3...etc.. The unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer contexts with these contexts revolving around said unchanging phenomenon. Because certain phenomenon do not change this unchanging phenomenon is expressed in newer and newer ways through different contexts with this unchanging phenomenon being the root of said differences. As a root of said differences there is a common median across various contexts by the fact said thing is unchanging. What is unchanging acts as an anchor point which ties seemingly different contexts together.

Using your example, which you maintain is unchanging, consider the following.

No concept is unchanging [nor do they actually exist]. Therefore, the number four is simply thought into existence. But even if it was real, it would not remain that way, that is, what four represents today is not what the system of mathematics will necessitate at some point in the future. In other words, one constant is that all things intellectual are transient. You simply must involve the key factor in intellectualism [time] to play in its role of arbiter.

There can be no primordial phenomenon, no base, no permanence in the intellectual sphere, as with permanence, the intellectual is void.

To say no concept exists is to point to a phenomenon and call it a concept thus necessitating, through the act of pointing, a concept exists.


To say all things intellectual are transient is in itself an intellectual statement. This results in:

1. "All intellectual things are transient" is a non transient intellectual statement therefore a contradiction occurs.

2. "All intellectual things are transient" is a transient intellectual statement therefore passes thus resulting in a further contradiction as impermanence passes into permanence.



To also say the intellect is void is to say it is formless. As formless it is a permanent state of being that all forms are derived from. It is permanent in the respect a state of formlessness permeates all being given all being is composed of points which are formless. Forms are an approximation of this single intellectual void given all forms are composed of points. The division of no-thingness (void) is a self negation, much in the same manner as "the formlessness of formlessness" or "the voiding of void", resulting in form. One can see this self negation in the division of a point resulting in the form of a line or circle; the point is the primordial symbol and manifestation of consciousness.