The Contradiction of Relativity

[stevie]

Oh my. Now you're trying to establish a metaphysical absolute truth when all is relative

"ALL is relative." is an absolute statement.

Key word "ALL".

No, it's relative, too. As is this contradiction of mine.

If you make a statement about "all" then any subsequent statement about anything is again included in "all".

[Skepdick]

No, it's relative, too. As is this contradiction of mine.

ALL is relative accounts for your contradiction.

Again. Keyword "ALL".

Q.E.D absolute statement.

[stevie]

No, it's relative, too. As is this contradiction of mine.

ALL is relative accounts for your contradiction.

Again. Keyword "ALL".

Q.E.D absolute statement.

"ALL" is relative as is the statement "all is relative".

[Skepdick]

"ALL" is relative as is the statement "all is relative".

Q.E.D you are confused.

ALL is relative is an absolute statement about relativity.

It accounts for ALL relativity. Because it accounts for ALL there is to account for (relativity) it's absolute.

[stevie]

"ALL" is relative as is the statement "all is relative".

...

ALL is relative is an absolute statement about relativity.

...

"ALL is relative" is a relative statement about relative "ALL".

[Skepdick]

"ALL is relative" is a relative statement about relative "ALL".

What is ALL relative to?

[stevie]

"ALL is relative" is a relative statement about relative "ALL".

What is ALL relative to?

It's relative to your conceptual framing in the context of the concept "ALL".

[Skepdick]

It's relative to your conceptual framing in the context of the concept "ALL".

My conceptual framing in the context of the concep ALL is part of ALL.

[stevie]

It's relative to your conceptual framing in the context of the concept "ALL".

My conceptual framing in the context of the concep ALL is part of ALL.

Relatively yes and relatively no.

[Skepdick]

Relatively yes and relatively no.

That's absolutely 1 Qubit.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, it is only "relatively false" under certain contexts. It is just that "relatively true" and "relatively false" are not absolutely true opposites.


Only if you don't recognize that the statement "if all is relative then this statement is relative" again is relative because it is included in "all".

1. If it is relatively false under certain contexts, ie "all is relative", then under said contexts not all is relative therefore absolutes exist.

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".

If it is false under certain contexts then it is always false under said contexts as said contexts are certain. Falseness under certain contexts means it is always false under those contexts therefore absolutes exist.

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".

2. "All is relative then this statement is relative" means all is relative thus relativity is an absolute as it is unchanging and constant through the context of "all". "All" as everything past, present and future is unchanging as it is a totality of being. Change necessitates multiplicity as one thing progresses to another, totality through the phenomenon of "all" necessitates unity as a singular unchanging being as there is no progression because there is not multiplicity.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

"ALL is relative" is a relative statement about relative "ALL".

What is ALL relative to?

Itself, thus one All results in many "alls" through a self referentiality which is absolute given it results in an infinite regress. As you said, or at least I think you said, "all" is a part of "all".

[Eodnhoj7]

"ALL" is relative as is the statement "all is relative".

Q.E.D you are confused.

ALL is relative is an absolute statement about relativity.

It accounts for ALL relativity. Because it accounts for ALL there is to account for (relativity) it's absolute.

Yes.

[stevie]

1. If it is relatively false under certain contexts, ie "all is relative", then under said contexts not all is relative therefore absolutes exist.

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".

If it is false under certain contexts then it is always false under said contexts as said contexts are certain. Falseness under certain contexts means it is always false under those contexts therefore absolutes exist.

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".

2. "All is relative then this statement is relative" means all is relative thus relativity is an absolute as it is unchanging and constant through the context of "all". "All" as everything past, present and future is unchanging as it is a totality of being. Change necessitates multiplicity as one thing progresses to another, totality through the phenomenon of "all" necessitates unity as a singular unchanging being as there is no progression because there is not multiplicity.

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.

[Age]

"ALL is relative" is a relative statement about relative "ALL".

What is ALL relative to?

It's relative to your conceptual framing in the context of the concept "ALL".

How could 'ALL' be ANY thing other than EVERY thing?