Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm Well, if ya take the flat earth example, I don't have to waste my time constructing extremely convoluted theories for why we are being duped.
And that would be swell, if you could tell us why you've chosen Ocam's razor over Hickam's dictum as a principle.
I haven't chosen either.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pmWhy do you believe nature can be explained "simply"?
It really would speed things up if you could stop insisting that I believe things that I only hold as general principles and will happily abandon for specific purposes.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm And then we could do the experiment.
Both theories describe the exact same phenomena - what do you expect to achieve with an experiment?

That is literally what "observational equivalence" means.
Ya don't say.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm Well, if yer gonna insist that any two philosophies are equifinal, you already have.
If two philosophies produce observationally-equivalent consequences - what else should I conclude?
That you haven't yet thought of an experiment that could settle the issue.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pmThat is literally what confluence and equifinality mean.
Skepdick, in case you haven't noticed, I read exactly as many of your links as you do mine.
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm It really would speed things up if you could stop insisting that I believe things that I only hold as general principles and will happily abandon for specific purposes.
Well, how many times do you have to abandon your "general principles" before you deem them generally useless?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm Ya don't say.
I do say. I also say that you are dodging the question.

What is the purpose/utility/end goal in performing experiments on observationally equivalent theories?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm That you haven't yet thought of an experiment that could settle the issue.
Obviously I haven't - that is literally the implication and consequence of underdetermination and observational equivalence!

If an experiment could settle it the theories wouldn't be observationally equivalent.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm Skepdick, in case you haven't noticed, I read exactly as many of your links as you do mine.
Well, I have read the only link you ever post - your blog.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:02 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm It really would speed things up if you could stop insisting that I believe things that I only hold as general principles and will happily abandon for specific purposes.
Well, how many times do you have to abandon your "general principles" before you deem them generally worthless?
As many times as there are specific purposes for which they are not the right tool.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:02 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm Ya don't say.
I do say. I also say that you are dodging the question.

What is the purpose/utility/end goal in performing experiments on observationally equivalent theories?
If the aim of the experiment is to decide between two or more observationally equivalent theories, none whatsoever.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:02 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm That you haven't yet thought of an experiment that could settle the issue.
Because it can't be settled experimentally. That is literally the implication of underdetermination!

That is literally what "observational equivalence" means!
Is that what it says in that wikipedia link you posted? It's a bit more subtle. I mentioned before that falsificationism is a blunt, though nonetheless useful instrument. Yeah, it is always possible to add clauses and conditions to protect hypotheses, so that anyone determined to maintain their pet silly bollocks need never give it up. But the broader implication of underdetermination is not that the choice between any two hypotheses will forever be undecided, rather it is that even if some future hypothesis has survived all challenges, seen off all it's rivals and is the last hypothesis standing, we still won't know that it obtains, because we cannot predict the future and therefore cannot know what future experiments or technology will reveal.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:02 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:04 pm Skepdick, in case you haven't noticed, I read exactly as many of your links as you do mine.
Well, I have read the only link you ever post - your blog.
In which case you haven't even read the posts which have been addressed directly to you, because that is not the only link I have posted. Here's one from earlier today:
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by A_Seagull »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pm Why do you believe nature can be explained "simply"?
Because people can only understand simple ideas.
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

A_Seagull wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:56 pm Why do you believe nature can be explained "simply"?
Because people can only understand simple ideas.
That's people's problem, not nature's problem.

If people can only understand simple ideas and nature can't be explained simply, then people can't understand nature.

Why do you believe that nature owes people simple explanations?
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm As many times as there are specific purposes for which they are not the right tool.
So that's every specific purpose then.

I can't remember the last time when a principle applied cleanly without exceptions. I can't even remember if there was a last time.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm If the aim of the experiment is to decide between two or more observationally equivalent theories, none whatsoever.
Well, it was your suggestion to settle it with an experiment...

Since this general principle has failed - do you have a better tool for the job?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm Is that what it says in that wikipedia link you posted? It's a bit more subtle.
I am 10 steps ahead of you on any subtlety you bring to the table. Try me.

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm I mentioned before that falsificationism is a blunt, though nonetheless useful instrument.
Falsification doesn't settle observationally equivalent theories because falsification overthrows both. Falsification brings a third (previously uncontested) theory to the table.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm Yeah, it is always possible to add clauses and conditions to protect hypotheses, so that anyone determined to maintain their pet silly bollocks need never give it up. But the broader implication of underdetermination is not that the choice between any two hypotheses will forever be undecided, rather it is that even if some future hypothesis has survived all challenges, seen off all it's rivals and is the last hypothesis standing, we still won't know that it obtains, because we cannot predict the future and therefore cannot know what future experiments or technology will reveal.
Well, we can know for sure that no future experiment can ever traverse the noumenon-phenomenon boundary, so while you certainly may uncover a new phenomenon you are still no closer to the noumenal world.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm In which case you haven't even read the posts which have been addressed directly to you, because that is not the only link I have posted. Here's one from earlier today:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
Let me paraphrase that. ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶b̶l̶o̶g̶ your own content. I read the article when you published it... Months ago.

Even though your link is on a separate thread from this one.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm As many times as there are specific purposes for which they are not the right tool.
So that's every specific purpose then.
No, like it says on the tin, it is every specific purpose for which the tool doesn't fit.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pmI can't remember the last time when a principle applied cleanly without exceptions. I can't even remember if there was a last time.
As I have conceded, it is always possible to add clauses and conditions. That's what makes Occam's razor useful. Or Hickam's dictum if that's what floats your boat.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm If the aim of the experiment is to decide between two or more observationally equivalent theories, none whatsoever.
Well, it was your suggestion to settle it with an experiment...
Yup. If an experiment can be designed to settle an issue you care about, do the experiment.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pmSince this general principle has failed - do you have a better tool for the job?
A general principle doesn't fail because of exceptions.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm Is that what it says in that wikipedia link you posted? It's a bit more subtle.
I am 10 steps ahead of you on any subtlety you bring to the table. Try me.
Very well. Let's start with step 1. What is it?
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm I mentioned before that falsificationism is a blunt, though nonetheless useful instrument.
Falsification doesn't settle observationally equivalent theories because falsification overthrows both. Falsification brings a third (previously uncontested) theory to the table.
Don't be silly. Falsificationism as a tool has no bearing on the result of any given experiment, nor does it follow that a third (why only 2?) theory is brought to the table.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm Yeah, it is always possible to add clauses and conditions to protect hypotheses, so that anyone determined to maintain their pet silly bollocks need never give it up. But the broader implication of underdetermination is not that the choice between any two hypotheses will forever be undecided, rather it is that even if some future hypothesis has survived all challenges, seen off all it's rivals and is the last hypothesis standing, we still won't know that it obtains, because we cannot predict the future and therefore cannot know what future experiments or technology will reveal.
Well, we can know for sure that no future experiment can ever traverse the noumenon-phenomenon boundary, so while you certainly may uncover a new phenomenon you are still no closer to the noumenal world.
Precisely the point I made.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:36 pm In which case you haven't even read the posts which have been addressed directly to you, because that is not the only link I have posted. Here's one from earlier today:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
Let me paraphrase that. ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶b̶l̶o̶g̶ your own content.

I read the article when you published it... Months ago.
And I hope you enjoyed it, but it does show that your claim that I only link to my blog is false.
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 4:18 pm
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.
Not an assumption, as all humans are bound by psychology, the environment in which they are exposed, as they respond to such experiences. As a relative blank we are programmed, and we often fight the programming for any particular fad so as to buck that initial programming, to be original, as if that's possible, but it surely, makes such a belief, cause them to feel better about themselves, correct or incorrect. But make no mistake all humans are the same in such respects, some cling to fantasy while others cling to truth!

I don't have any premises - I am an anti-foundationalist

"Anti-foundationalists use logical or historical or genealogical attacks on foundational concepts (see especially Nietzsche and Foucault), often coupled with alternative methods for justifying and forwarding intellectual inquiry, such as the pragmatic subordination of knowledge to practical action."
Notice the word "logical" used above from the wikipedia article, which pretty much indicates that you really don't understand Anti-foundationalism.

Antifoundationalists have been criticised for attacking all general claims except their own; for offering a localizing rhetoric contradicted in practice by their own globalizing style.[17]

Edward Said condemned radical anti-foundationalism for excessive cultural relativism and overdependence on the linguistic turn at the expense of human realities.[18]

See above some criticism of anti-foundationalism. I see that it's ridiculous to believe there's no foundation, as it's that which has led you to anti-foundationalism.
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?
I'm not! I'm a realist/idealist. Before one can become an idealist they have to be a realist, else they can see nothing, better that what? ;-)

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.
Not at all, you can't rationally explain why you say it's so.

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".
Argument is all about conveying, to correct ones spelling for instance is certainly a bait and switch ploy, in an attempt to convey, (falsely), superiority. In such a case one gains nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. It usually means they doubt themselves such that they have to change the topic so as to feel they are winners. Delusion? Denial? Of course!
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So you say, but then who the fuck are you?
I am an epistemologist
No, you're a human that chooses from a palette of possibilities, that came often long before you did. All you largely have is a-posteriori knowledge, where you tweak it here and there as you propose changes to boost your ego, without truly knowing! Our beliefs are largely taken upon faith, and sometimes peoples minds are so caught up in the universal complexities that they really can only spout that which they truly don't understand, it just sounds good, searching for unique individualism so they can fool themselves into believing they are special!
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.
Not projection, rather observation, but then I am human, such that I don't preclude my inclusion of that which is human.

What a contradiction this is:
"...knowing than knowledge is impossible." (I'm reasonably sure that I can assume you meant "that" instead of "than" as in no other way does it seem to make sense) and if so: REALLY??? Can you say, "confused?"
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.
Then you really are confused, as there is no such thing as life insurance.

Insure:
1. verb (used with object), in·sured, in·sur·ing.
to guarantee against loss or harm.


There is always going to be loss and harm, as the only constant in the universe is change. Money is not interchangeable with life.
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.
I know relatively 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.
Then I can disregard what you just said, as pretty much BS, because you just admitted that you don't know it!

Anything that we have no idea how to reduce (scientifically) we have no idea how to solve. Like complex systems - ecosystems.
Problems with ecosystems don't have to be reduced to be solved, rather seen as a whole of interdependence, which is what they are.
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.
Incorrect, math is everywhere, so says chemistry, upon which much of your life depends. Can you say biochemistry?
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.
It can be! Or do you believe that Einstein’s "theories" of special/general relativity hasn't provided a model for us to send probes to planets and moons in our solar system?
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?
It's relative to the whole of understanding, it's not that it's necessarily false.
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.
Yet I see that there is a place for all that mankind has offered in such a quest. It's just a matter of understanding where each piece fits.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2341
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Sculptor »

Since the idea of the "absolute" would be something like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

It is hard to see where this could be related to truth, since truth relies on a correspondence between statements and actualities.
Truth has to relate to a range of things. Since there is no an absolute place to stand, nor is it possible to utter "truth" without a statement standing in relation to the state of affairs which it seeks to represent, there can be no "absolute truth".
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Not an assumption, as all humans are bound by psychology, the environment in which they are exposed, as they respond to such experiences. As a relative blank we are programmed, and we often fight the programming for any particular fad so as to buck that initial programming, to be original, as if that's possible, but it surely, makes such a belief, cause them to feel better about themselves, correct or incorrect. But make no mistake all humans are the same in such respects, some cling to fantasy while others cling to truth!
I have no idea what that means.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that just because the premises are flawed the conclusion is false. That's bullshit made up by Philosophers.

For thousands of years humans have believed that White Willow Bark cures headaches because it has magical. The White Willod Bark does cure headaches even if magic has nothing to do with it.

WHY it works is a horseshit story, but THAT it works is a fact.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Notice the word "logical" used above from the wikipedia article, which pretty much indicates that you really don't understand Anti-foundationalism.
Notice the word OR between "logical OR historical", which pretty much indicates that I can choose history over logic. If you are struggling with basic English, I think you'll struggle with anything else I might say to you...
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm See above some criticism of anti-foundationalism. I see that it's ridiculous to believe there's no foundation, as it's that which has led you to anti-foundationalism.
That which has led me to anti-foundationalism is the absence of foundations. If the absence of foundations is a foundation for you, OK. But it's not for me.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm I'm not! I'm a realist/idealist. Before one can become an idealist they have to be a realist, else they can see nothing, better that what?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Not at all, you can't rationally explain why you say it's so.
Another strawman.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Argument is all about conveying, to correct ones spelling for instance is certainly a bait and switch ploy, in an attempt to convey, (falsely), superiority.
Which is why I am a fan of Rorty, who flat out refuses to engage in philosophy in an argumentative manner. Conversations are better.

The dominance/cockfighting games are an artefact of the male ego...
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm In such a case one gains nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. It usually means they doubt themselves such that they have to change the topic so as to feel they are winners. Delusion? Denial? Of course!
Is that what you are doing now?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm No, you're a human that chooses from a palette of possibilities, that came often long before you did. All you largely have is a-posteriori knowledge, where you tweak it here and there as you propose changes to boost your ego, without truly knowing! Our beliefs are largely taken upon faith, and sometimes peoples minds are so caught up in the universal complexities that they really can only spout that which they truly don't understand, it just sounds good, searching for unique individualism so they can fool themselves into believing they are special!
I know all of that. That's why I am an epistemologist.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am What a contradiction this is:[/color] "...knowing than knowledge is impossible."

Contradictions don't exist.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
There is always going to be loss and harm, as the only constant in the universe is change. Money is not interchangeable with life.

Money is interchangeable for doctors' proffesional services. That can equate with life.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
I know relatively what infinity is.

Infinity is not relative to anything.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Then I can disregard what you just said, as pretty much BS, because you just admitted that you don't know it!

Go right ahead.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Problems with ecosystems don't have to be reduced to be solved, rather seen as a whole of interdependence, which is what they are.

You can see them however you want - you can't control/predict their behaviour.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Incorrect, math is everywhere, so says chemistry, upon which much of your life depends. Can you say biochemistry?

Of all the biochemical organisms only humans do Math. Because it's a human invention...


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
It can be! Or do you believe that Einstein’s "theories" of special/general relativity hasn't provided a model for us to send probes to planets and moons in our solar system?

I believe Einstein's theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They can't both be right.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
It's relative to the whole of understanding, it's not that it's necessarily false.

Undestanding is relative.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6276
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
* 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.
* 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.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
* 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.
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
No, as context becomes absolute. Relativity is grounded in variations due to the nature of tautologies, yet these variations come from a common foundation.
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 »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:19 pm Since the idea of the "absolute" would be something like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

It is hard to see where this could be related to truth, since truth relies on a correspondence between statements and actualities.
Truth has to relate to a range of things. Since there is no an absolute place to stand, nor is it possible to utter "truth" without a statement standing in relation to the state of affairs which it seeks to represent, there can be no "absolute truth".
False logic! It would seem you're in a conceptual spiral, swirling in your head, trying to keep the concepts straight, yet lost in the attempt.

That which is absolute is something that is not dependent upon external conditions, such as our belief, knowledge or creation. It exists without us and always has.
Truth is the actual state of the matter, conformity with fact and reality, an indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

So now we have the absolute truth as I see it. Please don't be mistaken and confuse it with human kinds relative truths as touted ever differently depending upon whom and when you ask, that's just pretty much fear, lies, denial, delusion, etc, etc, etc!

An example of an absolute truth is the origin of our universe, whether we know what it was doesn't matter, all that matters is what it actually was. Which we may know or come to know.

Some absolute truths are extremely huge, like the one above and some are relatively simple like the fact that we found that our planet is a spheroid instead of flat, or that we finally realized that there are no crystal spheres that encapsulate the planets and stars.

The absolute truth is that which came before us that we can come to finally understand, after much time of ignorance, usually due to extensive scientific endeavour.
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 Jan 14, 2020 10:43 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Not an assumption, as all humans are bound by psychology, the environment in which they are exposed, as they respond to such experiences. As a relative blank we are programmed, and we often fight the programming for any particular fad so as to buck that initial programming, to be original, as if that's possible, but it surely, makes such a belief, cause them to feel better about themselves, correct or incorrect. But make no mistake all humans are the same in such respects, some cling to fantasy while others cling to truth!
I have no idea what that means.
Of course you'll deny what you are, as you have no clue!

There is absolutely no reason to believe that just because the premises are flawed the conclusion is false. That's bullshit made up by Philosophers.
No only dumb asses like you believe that.


For thousands of years humans have believed that White Willow Bark cures headaches because it has magical. The White Willod Bark does cure headaches even if magic has nothing to do with it.


WHY it works is a horseshit story, but THAT it works is a fact.
So what's your point here?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Notice the word "logical" used above from the wikipedia article, which pretty much indicates that you really don't understand Anti-foundationalism.
Notice the word OR between "logical OR historical", which pretty much indicates that I can choose history over logic. If you are struggling with basic English, I think you'll struggle with anything else I might say to you...

No dumbass you said logic was BS yet your fucking Anti-foundationalism says straight up that it uses logic, you convoluted contradiction! It went right over you idiotic head. By the way I beat you with that logic thing of which you have no use. What a tool!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm See above some criticism of anti-foundationalism. I see that it's ridiculous to believe there's no foundation, as it's that which has led you to anti-foundationalism.
That which has led me to anti-foundationalism is the absence of foundations. If the absence of foundations is a foundation for you, OK. But it's not for me.
Another bit of air over your dense head, so you would have us believe you popped out of the womb spouting anti-foundationalism before you took your first shit! Right! Dunbass your "foundation" was all that which came before you found anti-foundationalism. I can see why you denounce logic as you have no mind for it. Sequence is everything my dense friend. Anti-foundationalism could never have come into being with out all the foundation that you spit on! Your's is just a fad that shall be denounced as time wares on, a psudo-philosophy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm I'm not! I'm a realist/idealist. Before one can become an idealist they have to be a realist, else they can see nothing, better that what?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Not at all, you can't rationally explain why you say it's so.
Another strawman.
Like I inferred, strawman is a replacement for you ignorance!
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm Argument is all about conveying, to correct ones spelling for instance is certainly a bait and switch ploy, in an attempt to convey, (falsely), superiority.
Which is why I am a fan of Rorty, who flat out refuses to engage in philosophy in an argumentative manner. Conversations are better.
I agree with that!


The dominance/cockfighting games are an artefact of the male ego...
Yep, that nasty testosterone!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm In such a case one gains nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. It usually means they doubt themselves such that they have to change the topic so as to feel they are winners. Delusion? Denial? Of course!
Is that what you are doing now?
You need to look into your mirror, Mr testosterone!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:01 pm No, you're a human that chooses from a palette of possibilities, that came often long before you did. All you largely have is a-posteriori knowledge, where you tweak it here and there as you propose changes to boost your ego, without truly knowing! Our beliefs are largely taken upon faith, and sometimes peoples minds are so caught up in the universal complexities that they really can only spout that which they truly don't understand, it just sounds good, searching for unique individualism so they can fool themselves into believing they are special!
I know all of that. That's why I am an epistemologist.
JTB??? Don't forget the farmer and the cow! It applies to Epistemology as well.

Man you're all over the place, first you curse philosophers then admit you are one.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am What a contradiction this is:[/color] "...knowing than knowledge is impossible."

Contradictions don't exist.
The hell they don't! In your last, as referenced above you proved they do! But I think I'll use your flawed logic:

Anti-foundationalism doesn't exist! Feel better now that I saw things your way, Mr. strawman.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
There is always going to be loss and harm, as the only constant in the universe is change. Money is not interchangeable with life.

Money is interchangeable for doctors' proffesional services. That can equate with life.
Did you miss the "fact" that I spoke of "life insurance" or are you mentally challenged?


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
I know relatively what infinity is.

Infinity is not relative to anything.
No dumbass, your and my life relative to infinity, I'm sure it was self-evident to the smart ones!


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Then I can disregard what you just said, as pretty much BS, because you just admitted that you don't know it!

Go right ahead.
Feel the air travelling over and through your head?


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Problems with ecosystems don't have to be reduced to be solved, rather seen as a whole of interdependence, which is what they are.

You can see them however you want - you can't control/predict their behaviour.
Yes you can! It just takes study like your anti-foundation BS! Though I doubt you've actually studied it.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
Incorrect, math is everywhere, so says chemistry, upon which much of your life depends. Can you say biochemistry?

Of all the biochemical organisms only humans do Math. Because it's a human invention...
You don't know shit about chemistry do you? I guess it's easy to denounce things you don't understand!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
It can be! Or do you believe that Einstein’s "theories" of special/general relativity hasn't provided a model for us to send probes to planets and moons in our solar system?

I believe Einstein's theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They can't both be right.
Yeah and relativity models, which are long lived and have proven to be tried and true have actually given us something, whereas you can hide in the shadows of some leading edge scientific study, probably not actually understanding anything about it, simply parroting what it is that you've read, which has given us absolutely nothing useful and make believe you can BS everyone. No so called quantum computers still don't work they're having a problem with 100% accuracy, the last time I checked I think is was 40%, and that does not a computer make.


SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am
It's relative to the whole of understanding, it's not that it's necessarily false.

Undestanding is relative.
No you mean the capability of understanding is relative.

understanding (noun)
Philosophy.
....the power of abstract thought; logical power.
....Kantianism. the mental faculty resolving the sensory manifold into the transcendental unity of apperception.


User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2341
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Sculptor »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:59 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:19 pm Since the idea of the "absolute" would be something like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

It is hard to see where this could be related to truth, since truth relies on a correspondence between statements and actualities.
Truth has to relate to a range of things. Since there is no an absolute place to stand, nor is it possible to utter "truth" without a statement standing in relation to the state of affairs which it seeks to represent, there can be no "absolute truth".
False logic! It would seem you're in a conceptual spiral, swirling in your head, trying to keep the concepts straight, yet lost in the attempt.
Projection.

That which is absolute is something that is not dependent upon external conditions, such as our belief, knowledge or creation. It exists without us and always has.
Truth is the actual state of the matter, conformity with fact and reality, an indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
That's called fudge.
Truth does not exist on its own. It is about a relationship.

So now we have the absolute truth as I see it.
Contradiction.
Please don't be mistaken and confuse it with human kinds relative truths as touted ever differently depending upon whom and when you ask, that's just pretty much fear, lies, denial, delusion, etc, etc, etc!

An example of an absolute truth is the origin of our universe, whether we know what it was doesn't matter, all that matters is what it actually was. Which we may know or come to know.
The "origin of the universe", is a human concept used to fulfil a design for knowledge and curiosity. Thus far there have been a multitude of cosmologies since the dawn of time - all of them wrong. At best they represent a RELATIONSHIP between observable states of affairs and the interpretations we use to satisfy that what we are capable of observing fits with a theory.
In an absolute sense we cannot even know if "The origin of the universe" is even a meaningful phrase, since it has to stand in relation to our interpretations.

Some absolute truths are extremely huge, like the one above and some are relatively simple like the fact that we found that our planet is a spheroid instead of flat, or that we finally realized that there are no crystal spheres that encapsulate the planets and stars.

The absolute truth is that which came before us that we can come to finally understand, after much time of ignorance, usually due to extensive scientific endeavour.
Truth is not absolute, since it is a relation of ideas.
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am Of course you'll deny what you are, as you have no clue!
I don't deny that I have no clue what I am. If you think you know what you are, then you don't even have a clue that you don't have a clue.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am No only dumb asses like you believe that.
You got that exactly backwards. And you are a dumbass for thinking like that.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am So what's your point here?
My point is that

Gravity works; Airplanes fly; Fire burns and Wild WIllow Bark cures headaches and all of those things are true even if the premises used to arrive at those conclusions are false.

Competence in leveraging gravity, airplanes, fire and medicine does not require comprehension of their inner workings.

Only a Philosopher would believe that if the premises (foundations?) of their arguments are false then gravity will cease to function; airplanes will stop flying, fire will stop burning and salicylic acid (the active ingredient in Wild Willow Bark) will stop curing headaches.

But let me not waste any more of your precious time. You seem to be very busy with very important things.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply