Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:10 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:50 pm Either you are very stupid, or very dishonest to edit the above as you did.
Either the above is a false dichotomy; or it's a false dichotomy.
True. You could be both.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:10 pmSo (just to double-check) you aren't a pragmatist?
That's a false dichotomy.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:10 pmThis is the 2nd time you are dodging the question now. I am already suspecting it's intentional - 3rd time's the charm.

What is the signified for the signifier "meaning"?
Well aren't you the bossy one. The signified for the signifier "meaning" is meaning.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm True. You could be both.
I could be neither also.
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm That's a false dichotomy.
Very well. The dichotomy is that you are either a Pragmatist or you aren't.

Which option did I leave out?
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm Well aren't you the bossy one. The signified for the signifier "meaning" is meaning.
That sounds circular. Perhaps I am mistaken...

So which pragmatist has written about meaning (the signified, not the signifier)?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:53 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm True. You could be both.
I could be neither also.
Well yeah, I suppose that's possible.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:53 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm That's a false dichotomy.
Very well. The dichotomy is that you are either a Pragmatist or you aren't.

Which option did I leave out?
Ah well, it depends on what you mean by "Pragmatist" with a capital P.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:53 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm Well aren't you the bossy one. The signified for the signifier "meaning" is meaning.
That sounds circular. Perhaps I am mistaken...

So which pragmatist has written about meaning (the signified, not the signifier)?
Oh please. Are you really going to make a twat of yourself trying to score some point? Grow up and learn to have a proper conversation.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:10 pm Ah well, it depends on what you mean by "Pragmatist" with a capital P.
It's just a capitalised "pragmatist". It's for Philosophical effect. Like capitalising "philosophy".
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:10 pm Are you really going to make a twat of yourself trying to score some point?
Why don't I just make a twat of you by pointing out that you actually misunderstood what I meant by the word 'meaning'?

Good thing it's just Philosophy. The points are made up and the score is meaningless. Here - have all my points!
uwot wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:10 pm Grow up and learn to have a proper conversation.
Why is it that only Philosophers seem to think I am unable to converse? I used to think it's me, but I am starting to think it's you...

I should probably point out that you've said next to nothing about the topic at hand "Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?". You haven't even bothered to mention underdetermination and how it plays directly into the anti-realist position. At the very least you could've pointed out that anti-realists aren't saying anything different to Kant if one takes "reality" to mean the phenomenal, not the noumenal world.

So if derailing other people's threads is how you "converse" - I hope you won't mind if I don't use you as my role-model.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:50 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am That's not true, what was said yesterday may be said today. You said cannot, that's not what I said. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.
You are mistaken. I am attempting to pull the words out of your mouth, not put them there.

According to you it MAY be said that Earth is flat. Just as it MAY be said that the Earth is round.

To argue that both of those things MAY be said is precisely the argument for Ontological Relativity!
If you are agreeing with me - just say it. There's no need for sophistry.
Your premises are invalid, therefore your conclusions are false.

Sure anything may be said. But that has nothing to do with absolute truth, other than it can be done, and often is done by foolish humans.
That any particular human may say anything they choose, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ontology either.
Ontology asks what is, thus what is not, what exists, what reality is? That some people believe in leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and state as much, is only ontologically sound in that these type people exist, not that what they say is absolutely true. Instead it's absolutely true (probably) that they are mentally 'touched'.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am The Absolute Truth is the actual state of affairs.
In this one sentence you have fallen for Sorites paradox.
You are using "the" incorrectly. In the English language "the" is known as the definite particular.
So you're a English teacher, that's nice, but I don't believe I signed up for your class.

There is fuckall "definite" or "particular" about the sentence "THE state of affairs",
So you say, but then who the fuck are you? Just another swinging dick full of testosterone, that fears his inevitability, seeking his shelter in certainty, when in fact, in such a case, there is none, that is, not much considering the current human condition, (percentage of "THE" 'absolute truth' that humans currently "KNOW"!

(Now go ahead and correct my English like all losers do, that are, instead of knowledge, full of subterfuge and ploys!) You know, that self certainty thing you so enjoy!


when 'the' said affairs keep changing, and when 'the' said affairs keep being described in different language by different people.

"the state of affairs" It's so vague a sentence as to be meaningless.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be one of those idiots, that believe that a short summation must contain all the particulars, as self evident, that are contained within the summation. Sorry but you have to think about what's included when it comes to a very short sentence that encompasses infinity.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am If the current state of affairs is that we don't currently know, then that's the absolute truth. If ontology is currently incorrect as to any particular aspect of metaphysics then that is the Absolute Truth. If relativity of anything is the actual state of affairs then that is the absolute truth.
How can something that is changing from one moment onto the next be an "Absolute Truth"?!?
The absolute truth is all encompassing of that which is the universe, the actual state of affairs despite human ignorance of it.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Maybe you don't understand what the Absolute Truth is as I see it.
That's certainly the case, since I reject the very notion of Absolute Truth. Since you don't - perhaps you should explain it?
In the beginning, the membrane knew nothing of the absolute truth, it just absorbed what was required to stay alive. Evolution: chemistry over time changed it into the plethora of life that currently exists, but it was a very long journey, as we very slowly grew in knowledge, (which is our ferreting out bits and pieces of the absolute truth of things, (the actual state of affairs))
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am It's the truth from the universal perspective, not necessarily humankind’s.
As a Human, how could you ever come to acquire knowledge from such a perspective?
Time!! We have already amassed some of it. For instance we know much of both the macro and micro-scopic. Math, as it pertains to the universe. Though there are still many idiots that believe in things that have yet to be proven, as if they ever shall.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So while the absolute truth is a constant it's humankinds theories that are relative,
You are a human (are you not?), so how have you come to know anything about Absolute Truth, if all your knowledge is relative?
You totally left out the most important word, "theories!"

Surely Absolute Truth is not relative to anything? Because it's Absolute.
Absolutely!
You see, I see that our life's journey (quest) from day one of our, as a natural chemistry experiment, existence, has been to uncover the absolute truth of the universe, thus our lives, and we have made much progress in this monumental quest, but we are still far too young to know it all. That if we can outlive our foolish stages of possible (probable?) total annihilation, we may one day know it complete, the absolute truth, that is!

Today many humans don't even know themselves, in denial, fearful of the inevitable, fevorishly grappling for any sort of beliefs they can call truths so as to try and quell those fears of uncertainty. They can't see that the time has come do dissolve their selfishness and greed, that together as one human force we can be unstoppable it the quest of ascertaining the complete certain absolute truth of us all that is this universe.

Most men as still denying their need to cry. We are in fact currently pathetic, stabbing at windmills, too frightened to see them for what they truly are, namely: self defeatist imaginary monsters!

As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9353
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.

Post by henry quirk »

No, we're fairly bright, collectively and (especially) individually.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:

* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.

* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!

* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.

* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.

* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.

* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.

* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?

* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.

But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm Your premises are invalid, therefore your conclusions are false.
Your fallacy is - appeal to logic.
Logic is the epistemic ASSUMPTION by humans that reality has a structure - a structure that can be known by humans. This ASSUMPTION may or may not be true.

I don't have any premises - I am an anti-foundationalist
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm Ontology asks what is, thus what is not, what exists, what reality is?
And epistemology has limits which prevent you from getting to the answer.
If you are not allowed to know what is real, the how can you be a realist?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm That some people believe in leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and state as much, is only ontologically sound in that these type people exist, not that what they say is absolutely true. Instead it's absolutely true (probably) that they are mentally 'touched'.[/color]
Strawman.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So you're a English teacher, that's nice, but I don't believe I signed up for your class.
OK - if you want to remain ignorant just say the word "Please stop pointing out my errors to me".
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So you say, but then who the fuck are you?
I am an epistemologist
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Just another swinging dick full of testosterone, that fears his inevitability, seeking his shelter in certainty, when in fact, in such a case, there is none, that is, not much considering the current human condition, (percentage of "THE" 'absolute truth' that humans currently "KNOW"!
You must be projecting. I am not a determinist by any stretch of the imagination - and I am perfectly comfortable knowing than knowledge is impossible.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am (Now go ahead and correct my English like all losers do, that are, instead of knowledge, full of subterfuge and ploys!) You know, that self certainty thing you so enjoy![/color]
I don't enjoy certainty - In only sell it. I am in the insurance business - risk management.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be one of those idiots, that believe that a short summation must contain all the particulars, as self evident, that are contained within the summation. Sorry but you have to think about what's included when it comes to a very short sentence that encompasses infinity.
You don't know what infinity is.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am In the beginning, the membrane knew nothing of the absolute truth, it just absorbed what was required to stay alive. Evolution: chemistry over time changed it into the plethora of life that currently exists, but it was a very long journey, as we very slowly grew in knowledge
We don't have any knowledge - the latest thing to come our way is abstract thought. Logic, Mathematics, Language.
Decomposing complex problems into smaller problems that we can solve then put back together. These sort of things.

Anything that we have no idea how to reduce (scientifically) we have no idea how to solve. Like complex systems - ecosystems.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Time!! We have already amassed some of it. For instance we know much of both the macro and micro-scopic. Math, as it pertains to the universe. Though there are still many idiots that believe in things that have yet to be proven, as if they ever shall.
Math doesn't pertain to the Universe. It pertains to the human mind. Math is our abstract understanding OF the universe.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am You totally left out the most important word, "theories!"
Lets keep that word there then. A theory of Absolute Truth is NOT Absolute Truth.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Absolutely!
Then how can you say anything about it when all of your knowledge is relative?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am You see, I see that our life's journey (quest) from day one of our, as a natural chemistry experiment, existence, has been to uncover the absolute truth of the universe, thus our lives, and we have made much progress in this monumental quest, but we are still far too young to know it all. That if we can outlive our foolish stages of possible (probable?) total annihilation, we may one day know it complete, the absolute truth, that is!

Today many humans don't even know themselves, in denial, fearful of the inevitable, fevorishly grappling for any sort of beliefs they can call truths so as to try and quell those fears of uncertainty. They can't see that the time has come do dissolve their selfishness and greed, that together as one human force we can be unstoppable it the quest of ascertaining the complete certain absolute truth of us all that is this universe.

Most men as still denying their need to cry. We are in fact currently pathetic, stabbing at windmills, too frightened to see them for what they truly are, namely: self defeatist imaginary monsters!

As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.[/color]
And it's not going to get much better than this for as long as the only instrument we have for understanding The Universe is abstract language.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:14 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:

* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.

* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!

* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.

* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.

* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.

* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.

* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?

* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.

But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
You are going to have to take up your disagreement with physics. I don't care for it.

At the ontological foundation of human thought are point-particles (e.g categories!) they cause physicists a whole lot of headaches when they get too close to each other giving birth to infinities. Is why physics has to do renormalization to make sense of the world at such small scale.

It's also one of the reasons for spawning string theory. It's born out of the idea that the Atomists may actually be wrong - at the smallest scales, maybe reality is not divisible into parts/points. Maybe strings are fundamental?

The point being: if your mind is categorical, but reality isn't. You can't be a realist - you lack the capacity for it.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: "As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:02 pm No, we're fairly bright, collectively and (especially) individually.
Not at all HQ!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9353
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.

Post by henry quirk »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:12 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:02 pm No, we're fairly bright, collectively and (especially) individually.
Not at all HQ!
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:14 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:

* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.

* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!

* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.

* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.

* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.

* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.

* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?

* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.

But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
You are going to have to take up your disagreement with physics. I don't care for it.

At the ontological foundation of human thought are point-particles (e.g categories!) they cause physicists a whole lot of headaches when they get too close to each other giving birth to infinities. Is why physics has to do renormalization to make sense of the world at such small scale.

It's also one of the reasons for spawning string theory. It's born out of the idea that the Atomists may actually be wrong - at the smallest scales, maybe reality is not divisible into parts/points. Maybe strings are fundamental?

The point being: if your mind is categorical, but reality isn't. You can't be a realist - you lack the capacity for it.
Not at all, you mentioned someone's argument in your OP. Everything on the cutting edge of science is always in dispute, simply theories. There is never absolute agreement by everyone toying with the answers.

And I'm arguing with you, that simply parrots others, without fully understanding.

Though I've attended some college, I haven't spent much time at all on such 'trivialities.' Sure I pick up things here and there, but it doesn't really matter to me. All that matters is that you're born, shit happens to you, and then you die. Then you die! And no amount of knowledge on such things is going to change the fact that you'll return from whence you came, such that it's all for naught. At least as far as you're concerned, as whether you are or are not in the history books, won't matter to you. And men are fools anyway, look at the idiot president of the US that says he doesn't believe in global warming, obviously he has no love for his progeny, to gamble with their lives as he does. Really? Are females just fuck toys and men competition as far as he's concerned?

Look at history, how out of fear men continue to kill one another. Testosterone!!! When are the monkey boys going to get a handle on it? Still mesmerized by the sight of the glittering prize. Fools, them all, Fools, Them All!

I do know that Schroedinger's cat is a bunch of bullshit, it's not both dead and alive at the same time, in fact it's either dead or alive, one or the other. That one cannot know which it is, with certainty, matters not to the actual fact of the matter.

That it's observed doesn't change anything, it's an absurd notion of fools. I might believe that it's the electromagnetic lines of flux contained within the observer and/or his tools that change things on such an utterly small scale, but never the fact that someone is observing. So no, I pretty much think that all those that play with the notion of quantum mechanics are idiots just trying to maintain their tenure and keep their livelihood flowing, you know, the glittering prize for the monkey brained!

My main concern in college were the humanities, philosophy, psychology, history, art, sociology, anthropology, biology, etc! Those things that laid humankind naked and bare for all to see. All their failings and all their triumphs, though the latter are relatively few, because they're not really triumphs if they're just robbing from Peter to pay Paul. If it's not clean, it's not truly a triumph, especially if it's aim is to serve greed and laziness. Humans need sloth like a hole in the head. Clean air, water, food, plenty of exercise and the truth of what we really are, is all we need. All the rest is simply fluff, sugar that simply feeds the carcinogenic, or so says biochem.

So no sir, I whole heartedly disagree, you're just like all the rest, me included, that wants to stay the inevitable, by believing in some sort of certainty as if that shall somehow curb the inevitable, if only in our own minds! If only in our own minds...

If only in our own minds...
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:22 pmWhy don't I just make a twat of you by pointing out that you actually misunderstood what I meant by the word 'meaning'?
Be my guest. So what do I think you mean by'meaning', and what do you actually mean?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:22 pmI should probably point out that you've said next to nothing about the topic at hand "Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?". You haven't even bothered to mention underdetermination and how it plays directly into the anti-realist position.
Fair enough. I doubt that there is more than one ontology responsible for any given phenomenon. Seems terribly wasteful. I have pointed out that I have written articles for Philosophy Now that make my position clear, and have stated my case in other threads to which you have responded. But for the purposes of this thread, it is epistemology that I think is relative; as above, I really doubt there is more than one ontology. In other words, for any experience there may be any number of contributory factors, but that set of factors is adequate, there is no need for alternative ontologies to explain it. The way you put the question suggests that ontologies are private. Maybe, but I can't see how you could demonstrate it.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:22 pmAt the very least you could've pointed out that anti-realists aren't saying anything different to Kant if one takes "reality" to mean the phenomenal, not the noumenal world.
Big if. Nope, I'm pretty old school about this. My thought is that "reality" refers to the journal, rather than phenomenal.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm Be my guest. So what do I think you mean by'meaning', and what do you actually mean?
The Meaning that can be told of is not the eternal Meaning; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

It's holism before it's reduced to language. And even this definition doesn't do it justice.

It's what computer scientists dub The Expression Problem. If one subscribes to the principle of parsimony, then the use-case directly dictates the linguistic paradigm of expression - imperative or declarative.
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm it is epistemology that I think is relative
Everything we call "ontology" exists with epistemologies. If epistemology is relative (and it is) then so are all ontologies.

To speak of the One True Ontology (a.k.a Reality-as-it-truly-is) is to make non-epistemic claims.
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm as above, I really doubt there is more than one ontology. In other words, for any experience there may be any number of contributory factors, but that set of factors is adequate, there is no need for alternative ontologies to explain it.
This argument doesn't address under-determination. Just because you need and seek one explanation, doesn't detract from the fact that multiple, overlapping explanations exist.

Every explanation is an ontology. It's par for the course for model-dependent realism.
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm The way you put the question suggests that ontologies are private. Maybe, but I can't see how you could demonstrate it.
Do I have to? It's obvious. Ask 10 different people "what exists?" and you will get 10 different answers.
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm Big if. Nope, I'm pretty old school about this. My thought is that "reality" refers to the journal, rather than phenomenal.
If by the "journal" you mean the ledger which records the correct ordering of causes and effects (e.g events in time), it sure begs the question.

Relative to which reference frame?

P.S If you subscribe to the notion that "reality" is a journal, then abstractly and functionally it's trivial to infer that your belief-system has many similarities to the belief-system of theists. If "reality" is a journal then "reality" has a property mathematicians call well-orderedness. If "reality" is well-ordered then it has a control-flow.

In Programming Language Theory this corresponds to imperative programming, where the grammar/language strongly optimises for control. In a way - it's a mindset where "how" matters more than "what".

control /kənˈtrəʊl/ noun. the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.

So if you think that there is indeed a being or beings with the power that can alter people's behaviour or course of events.... You are half way to re-inventing the God-idea. The question is whether you externalise or internalise this notion...
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Skepdick wrote:... Do I have to? It's obvious. Ask 10 different people "what exists?" and you will get 10 different answers.
...
Ignoring the philosophers ask them if the external world exists and I'm betting all would answer "yes".

Whilst I take your points you appear to think this world depends upon our models?
Post Reply