lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Absolute Fact / Universal Truth
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 01-05-2009, 09:42 PM   #41
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious View Post
When Adam delved and Eve span, What then was two? From the beginning all men by nature were created one, and our two-ness or division came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any two-men from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be two, and who one. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ( if ye will ) cast off the yoke of duality, and recover unity.
well i believe this settles this issue



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 09:57 PM   #42
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
^^^^

I was just gonna say that.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:04 PM   #43
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
There are inviduals who hear voices and see people that don't really exist. Yet to them, they are as real as you or me. Some people, when on certain illegal substances, hallucinate, and see things that aren't really there. Whenever you dream, you are put into a world that does not really exist, yet when you're there, you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that what is happening to you is really happening.

You see that as a fact. In the dream, that is.

Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.

What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.

And what if they don't see it at all, and are really just constructs of an insane mind trying to create the perfect mental world? I know it sounds all like science fiction, but it is a possibility. Can you disprove that it's possible, with your sciences, and your math, which, by the way, were created by humans with human brains, who saw what they, as individuals, saw, and nothing more. It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.

You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:07 PM   #44
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
There are inviduals who hear voices and see people that don't really exist. Yet to them, they are as real as you or me. Some people, when on certain illegal substances, hallucinate, and see things that aren't really there. Whenever you dream, you are put into a world that does not really exist, yet when you're there, you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that what is happening to you is really happening.

You see that as a fact. In the dream, that is.

Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.

What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.

And what if they don't see it at all, and are really just constructs of an insane mind trying to create the perfect mental world? I know it sounds all like science fiction, but it is a possibility. Can you disprove that it's possible, with your sciences, and your math, which, by the way, were created by humans with human brains, who saw what they, as individuals, saw, and nothing more. It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.

You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.
hallucinations can't be confirmed by others or measured in the same way as light, radiation, sound, or whatever else can be.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:14 PM   #45
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.
The premise here seems to be that because we can create we are incapable of observing. Could you please help me understand why any of us should accept this? Is there a particular reason why you consider the two to be mutually exclusive?
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:15 PM   #46
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
hallucinations can't be confirmed by others or measured in the same way as light, radiation, sound, or whatever else can be.
Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The premise here seems to be that because we can create we are incapable of observing. Could you please help me understand why any of us should accept this? Is there a particular reason why you consider the two to be mutually exclusive?
Can you explain why you should accept anything as real? My proof is that we have imaginations, we lie, we create fictional works of literature or abstract images of visual art that have no basis in "fact". If we are capable of constructing such vastly unreal things, who's to say we should take anything for granted as "real"? Maybe we're just a race of sentient beings that are letting our imaginations run wild. Our brains, that inexplicably have the ability to feel emotion, to create the abstract, the diverse, the unique, even when those things are tethered to boundaries of logic for others to understand, could very well be bending or constructing a world around us filled with both real and unreal things. So, without a way to recognise which is which, because we aren't omnipotent beings, how are we supposed to know what is fact, and what is fiction?

This is all hypothetical, mate. None of it is neccesarily true. I can't tell you what's true, because I simply do not know. My imagination might be creating this, just like yours might be creating this. If we are to assume that everything is real, and that what we see, regardless of how we see it, is the same object, solid, and real, then we can safely assume that there are absolute truths. And that humanity knows some. Prove to me that everything you see is real. I've proven to you why everything isn't real, necessarily.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:17 PM   #47
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.
geiger counters and solar panels dont take kindly to suggestions



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:25 PM   #48
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
geiger counters and solar panels dont take kindly to suggestions
And who were those made by? Pretty sure it was humanity, and, based on the fact that humanity can be so easily swayed to see certain things makes me doubt whether or not they built them to have that kind of objectivity. I fail to see how subjective hands can create objective things. Our logic is very much intertwined with our imaginations, so anything we create may have our logic without or imaginations, but the taint of what may be unreal could still be present.

If, of course, geiger counters or solar panels exist at all.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:29 PM   #49
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
420 smoke weed everyday
yeh bro



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:33 PM   #50
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.
Please, stop with the existential, off-topic comments.

The thread is not "What is the truth to all life, the universe, and everything?"

The thread is "Facts can be absolutely true."

This is not "does god exist" "what is the point of life" "what is the ultimate answer"

The OP simply states that a single fact. Single. Just one. Can be absolutely true.

You are bringing in massive, all encompassing questions which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Why?

Because, if I deprive you of oxygen for a week you will -die-. Eventually you will die. My mother is female. etc etc etc



Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.
It doesn't matter what you want to see.

Just because someone does not percieve gravity does not mean that, to them, it does not exist. They are still being held onto the ground.

No-one can just say "gravity is all in my mind" and then just fly away like superman. This is not the matrix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.
Ok. Here is a test.

Seeing as you can bend time and space around you, do this:

Put a plastic bag over your head, tie it around your neck, convince yourself you do not need Oxygen, and just breath as much as you can.

If you don't die, then I will worship you. If you do, then you prove the absolute fact that humans require oxygen in what they breath around them for them to survive and not suffocate.

Your brain needs Oxygen. I am not trying to convince you of this. I am not using the power of suggestion on you.

I am telling you, straight up, that no matter how much anyone wants to have faith and believe, they will still need oxygen to of some sort to live. That you cannot will yourself out of society's standards and fly away. You cannot will yourself to become a character from dragonball z.

You can hallucinate that you are, but it is a world that is entirely subjective to your own mind.

However, if I clap my hands and other recognize that I have done so, then it is absolute fact that I have clapped my hands.

Maybe you can in a drug hallucination, but that hallucination is entirely subjective. Are bugs actually crawling out of their skin? No, because you can put that person in front of a crowd of people and they would all say "no, there are no bugs crawling out of his skin and eating his flesh".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.
So, we live in the matrix?

Nothing is real?

Absolutely nothing exists, not even you?

Really? Absolutely nothing in infinity has, or will ever exist for infinity?

I hate philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.
Double Standard.

It is pure arrogance to say that you are absolutely correct in the same sentence as saying "nothing is absolute".

You're the one seeing this as black and white fact, not us. Don't be so arrogant and high-horse when it is your argument that lacks any form of rational reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.
Color is a horrible comparison.

You don't need color to live.

You do, however, need water and oxygen. There are no "oxygen" blind humans walking around.

You exist. Absolute Fact, even if you are a computer program.
I exist. Absolute Fact, but thats harder to prove as you are not seeing me right now.
We both need oxygen to live. Absolute fact.
You posted a message on Lucas Forums. Absolute fact.
True_Avery is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:37 PM   #51
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Please, stop with the existential, off-topic comments.
They're perfectly on-topic. I believe the topic is Absolute Fact/Universal Truth. That's what I was talking about, whether you like my philosophy or not. Since you just declared that you hate philosophy. Or was that real? I don't absolutely know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
You exist. Absolute Fact, even if you are a computer program.
I exist. Absolute Fact, but thats harder to prove as you are not seeing me right now.
We both need oxygen to live. Absolute fact.
You posted a message on Lucas Forums. Absolute fact.
So you know for an absolute fact that I really exist? That you really exist? That we both are breathing right now? That this forum exists? You know that, without a shadow of a doubt, and without a shadow of a doubt, you cannot be wrong? You are an omnipotent, omniscient being, that can say anything, and know, absolutely, for a fact, with complete and total objectivity, that what you see, and what you know, are actually real.

Ha. I doubt it.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 10:45 PM   #52
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
i am a bot beep boop bop



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:16 PM   #53
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Meh, I'm done.

By definition, there is now nothing to do with this topic.
True_Avery is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:21 PM   #54
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
I hate philosophy.
FWIW, I don't think very much of what's being posited here qualifies as "philosophy". Philosophy tends to be rooted in logic and well...
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:26 PM   #55
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Meh, I'm done.

By definition, there is now nothing to do with this topic.
So, instead of admitting that you can be wrong, that it is very possible that your concept could be incorrect, as I have conceded about my own several times, you're going to dismiss the entire debate. Instead of admitting that because you could be wrong, and that my concept could hold water, that reality may be questionable, and that because of imagination, things can be both real and unreal, you are going to end the argument.

What if air doesn't exist, and we only die when we fail to breath because our brain has been programmed as children with pre-concieved concepts built into our very genetics that tell us to breath, or we die, and the brain shuts down in a powerful psycho-somatic fit of failure to comply with a suggestion so old, it's become part of our genetic instinct. Well, we know air exists, right? We can measure it, and see it. But what if we can only do that because someone suggested to us that it's what really exists? That we have bent our perspectives to see something that isn't there. With imagination, a child can see a person that isn't there. Why can't we see air, even when it doesn't exist? (Seeing is being used as a rather large term, by the way)

Not saying it does. Not saying it doesn't. Just saying, it could be either. And as a person that is not right all the time, it's safe to say that you can concede that you could be wrong, and not know it. That knowing if you are absolutely right or wrong cannot be done, due to the fact that we don't know if something is real or unreal. I'm willing to accept that your theory holds water, and take it seriously. You want to know why you should take mine seriously? Because you can be just as wrong as I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
FWIW, I don't think very much of what's being posited here qualifies as "philosophy". Philosophy tends to be rooted in logic and well...
Yup, because your definition of logical cannot be wrong, and I'm just a rambling lunatic. No amount of derogatory statements are going to change the fact that I have formed this theory, if you want to call it that, with a firm basis in "logic".

If you can be wrong, and you can make mistakes, then logically, you could be wrong about your side in this debate. Inversely, so can I. Maybe I'm full of ****. Okay, I can deal with that. Can you deal with not being able to absolutely know that you are absolutely right? To know that, you can never be wrong about anything, ever. Are you?

Love how you revert to name calling, by the way.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:31 PM   #56
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
What if air doesn't exist, and we only die when we fail to breath because our brain has been programmed as children with pre-concieved concepts built into our very genetics that tell us to breath, or we die, and the brain shuts down in a powerful psycho-somatic fit of failure to comply with a suggestion so old, it's become part of our genetic instinct.
This seems like a very easily testable hypothesis. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and get back to us when you have something more than "what ifs" to throw at us? TTFN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Yup, because your definition of logical cannot be wrong, and I'm just a rambling lunatic.
QFT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
No amount of derogatory statements are going to change the fact that I have formed this theory, if you want to call it that, with a firm basis in "logic".
Err, technically it would be a hypothesis and so far you don't even meet the minimum qualifications for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
If you can be wrong, and you can make mistakes, then logically, you could be wrong about your side in this debate. Inversely, so can I. Maybe I'm full of ****. Okay, I can deal with that. Can you deal with not being able to absolutely know that you are absolutely right? To know that, you can never be wrong about anything, ever. Are you?
It's not about me being right. It's about whether your ideas have merit or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Love how you revert to name calling, by the way.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:40 PM   #57
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
This seems like a very easily testable hypothesis. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and get back to us when you have something more than "what ifs" to throw at us? TTFN.
All you're doing, if I'm at all right in this, is throwing around "what ifs" and calling them more than that. I actually don't think it's possible to do what you're asking me to do, which would kind of lead us to a logical crossroads. I can't prove to you that I have any merit to your qualifications, and you can't prove to me that you know absolute facts. Having the ability to be wrong and all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Err, technically it would be a hypothesis and so far you don't even meet the minimum qualifications for that.
That's philosophy, mate. Funny thing about it is that even Empiricism is a philosophy. Just one way of doing things, created and shaped by a man. Descartes, wasn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It's not about me being right. It's about whether your ideas have merit or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever.
You're applying your concepts of logic, which you cannot know are right or wrong if my concept holds water (NOT SAYING IT DOES), to try and prove whether something I'm saying has "merit". Okay.

EDIT: Let me just paint a picture here, so that maybe this makes more sense. I know that if I were to claim that nothing is true, then my argument can't be true, and if my argument can't be true, then something has to be true. That's a paradox. I know that, I logically recognise that. Which is why, during the course of this debate, I have instead suggested that things can be both true and untrue, but we don't have the capability to recognise which is which, because we can create that which is not real, mistake it for real, and be wrong.

I'm presenting my argument as something that could undoubtedly be very, very wrong. I am speculating. That's all we ever do. Speculate. But you're not willing to concede that. You're saying that speculation isn't what we're doing. You're laying down the facts, and I'm a rambling lunatic. What makes you more right than me, if evidence could be imaginative constructs, if you could be wrong, if you could be mistaking what is real for what is not? You probably can't. Maybe. So we speculate.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.

Last edited by Adavardes; 01-05-2009 at 11:51 PM.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:47 PM   #58
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
All you're doing, if I'm at all right in this, is throwing around "what ifs" and calling them more than that. I actually don't think it's possible to do what you're asking me to do, which would kind of lead us to a logical crossroads. I can't prove to you that I have any merit to your qualifications, and you can't prove to me that you know absolute facts. Having the ability to be wrong and all.

That's philosophy, mate. Funny thing about it is that even Empiricism is a philosophy. Just one way of doing things, created and shaped by a man. Descartes, wasn't it?

You're applying your concepts of logic, which you cannot know are right or wrong if my concept holds water (NOT SAYING IT DOES), to try and prove whether something I'm saying has "merit". Okay.
Sophism
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:50 PM   #59
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
You miss the very point of your own argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
So, instead of admitting that you can be wrong, that it is very possible that your concept could be incorrect, as I have conceded about my own several times, you're going to dismiss the entire debate.
I cannot admit I am wrong, and I cannot call myself right, because both right and wrong are human constructs.

There is no such thing as incorrect, because incorrect and correct are flawed due to being part of human language trying to decribe a universe that cannot be proven, or disproven to exist.

But proven and disprove are human constructs, so...

Do you get it? I could point out the flaws for infinity, but infinity does not exist as time is a flawed human concept.

I am walking away from the debate because...

There is nothing to debate, because there is nothing. But, that statement is flawed, because there cannot be nothing, as nothing is a human concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Instead of admitting that because you could be wrong, and that my concept could hold water, that reality may be questionable, and that because of imagination, things can be both real and unreal, you are going to end the argument.
I cannot be wrong, because there is no such thing as wrong.

There is no such thing as no such thing.

None of it can be proven, or disproven.

Your argument cannot hold water, because a human typed it out. It cannot hold water, because water is a human construct, and the saying "cannot hold water" does and does not exist, etc etc etc etc.

I end it, because there is no beginning. Neither end nor beginning exist, as time is a human construct within flawed subjective human language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Not saying it does. Not saying it doesn't. Just saying, it could be either.
Either or, or either. Either does not exist. Neither does does, or doesn't.

But you cannot prove that they do or don't.

There is no logical, or human way to present this. At all. But at the same time...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
And as a person that is not right all the time, it's safe to say that you can concede that you could be wrong, and not know it. That knowing if you are absolutely right or wrong cannot be done, due to the fact that we don't know if something is real or unreal. I'm willing to accept that your theory holds water, and take it seriously. You want to know why you should take mine seriously? Because you can be just as wrong as I can.
Stop calling me right or wrong and undermining your own argument.

I am not stupid. If you had bothered to read, I explained earlier that I was a full supporter of moral relativism for a long time.

I know this branch of philosophy, if it can be called that. You by basis of your own argument, you and I can neither be right nor wrong about it as right and wrong may or may not exist, but may or may not may or may not exist.

I walk away because there is nothing to debate, by definition of the argument.

The most logical thing I can do is walk away from something that is, by definition, impossible to defeat.

I will never admit that you are right, because by doing so I am claiming an absolute. I will never I am wrong to this argument, because there is no way to claim either, as both are subjective human constructs.

Stop sitting on top of your high horse. You cannot claim victory over a debate that cannot be debated, and can neither be right nor wrong, seeing as neither exist, or not exist.

It comes down to a theory called Solipsism, and some forms of Nihilism, which I am familiar with and understand the concept of, and can articulate it just as well as you can.

Stop being so arrogant.

The End.
True_Avery is offline   you may:
Old 01-05-2009, 11:59 PM   #60
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Human concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
I cannot admit I am wrong, and I cannot call myself right, because both right and wrong are human constructs.

There is no such thing as incorrect, because incorrect and correct are flawed due to being part of human language trying to decribe a universe that cannot be proven, or disproven to exist.

But proven and disprove are human constructs, so...

Do you get it? I could point out the flaws for infinity, but infinity does not exist as time is a flawed human concept.

I am walking away from the debate because...

There is nothing to debate, because there is nothing. But, that statement is flawed, because there cannot be nothing, as nothing is a human concept.
Maybe. But this is why we speculate. Create concepts. We're trying to find the absolutes. But maybe we never can. Maybe it's too far beyond us. If it is, we'll never know, will we?

Thank you for, at the very least, respecting the possibilities. I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant. I never meant to be so, and you have my sincerest apologies. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Who knows? I look at this as an intellectual stimulus, an opportunity to question things, and wonder "why is something that way, why does it mean this, why does that always mean that?" Fun, really. I'm not trying to be mean or arrogant, or call your entire life into question out of spite or hatred. Just trying to get you to ask the question, "why?"



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:03 AM   #61
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,049
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
FWIW, I don't think very much of what's being posited here qualifies as "philosophy". Philosophy tends to be rooted in logic and well...
QFT, but after college philosophy, I still agree with True_Avery
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
I hate philosophy.
mimartin is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:04 AM   #62
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Human concept.
So is the concept that everything is nothing more than a human concept. Ignore your own rules at the risk of your credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
QFT, but after college philosophy, I still agree with True_Avery
I had to take quite a bit for both my grad and undergrad degrees too but luckily it never soured me to anything more than sloppy thinking.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:08 AM   #63
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Thank you for, at the very least, respecting the possibilities. I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant. I never meant to be so, and you have my sincerest apologies. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Who knows? I look at this as an intellectual stimulus, an opportunity to question things, and wonder "why is something that way, why does it mean this, why does that always mean that?" Fun, really. I'm not trying to be mean or arrogant, or call your entire life into question out of spite or hatred. Just trying to get you to ask the question, "why?"
Ok, then I apologize for snapping at you.

Its just, I'd expand upon the debate if there was anything to debate about. Being that I'm a Nihilist for the most part, I get where you are coming from and understand it enough to articulate it, but due to my own human flaws have a hard time comprehending it fully. And, well, by definition it is seemingly impossible to comprehend.

So, for the sake of my own sanity and not further spamming the thread with drivel, I'm respectfully backing out of the topic as I feel its gone as far as it can go.

Good day to you, good sir.
True_Avery is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:13 AM   #64
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
So is the concept that everything is nothing more than a human concept. Ignore your own rules at the risk of your credibility.
Achilles, are you completely ignoring what I'm saying? It's a human concept, and human concepts have the same possibility of being right or wrong. Wrong and right are human concepts, so they could be wrong. I say that human concepts are human concepts, but that concept could be wrong. You say that my concept of human concepts being human concepts is wrong, but you could be wrong. One of us, or all of us, could also be right.

This is a war that cannot be won with "You lose your credibility", or "You don't follow logic". Logic and credibility could be incorrect concepts. They could also be right. So, we do as we have always do, and speculate as to what we're doing, trusting in the fact that we are right. Like T_A said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
The most logical thing I can do is walk away from something that is, by definition, impossible to defeat.
I have had fun, though. It's kind of frustrating to come to an end where you can invariably go no further without coming to shaky ground, and I can understand why you want to keep claiming that my argument holds no water, or eats itself. Truth is, I don't care, because eating itself may be wrong, or holding no water may be wrong.

I can't prove myself right, you can't prove me wrong. Diffusion of responsibility on the person claiming something, IE, certain debate etiquette, could also be wrong, or right. I think I've said all that can be said, and this debate has met its invariable dead end.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.

Last edited by Adavardes; 01-06-2009 at 01:09 AM.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:29 AM   #65
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Achilles, are you completely ignoring what I'm saying?
Not at all. How could I possibly find the flaws in your arguments without actually reading them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
It's a human concept, and human concepts have the same possibility of being right or wrong.
No, not the same possibility. Please go back and re-read post #45.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Wrong and right are human concepts, so they could be wrong.
Depends on the context. True or false is not the same as good or evil. One is a means of comparison for something observable (and therefore outside this "human concept" mumbo jumbo). The other is a human construct (so far as I'm willing to argue). They are not equal, just as any other context you wish to provide for the nebulous terms you used above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
I say that human concepts are human concepts, but that concept could be wrong.
Including yours. *Poof* your argument disappears. We're all prepared to move along. How about you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
You say that my concept of human concepts being human concepts is wrong, but you could be wrong. One of us, or all of us, could also be right.

This is a war that cannot be won with "You lose your credibility", or "You don't follow logic". Logic and credibility could be incorrect concepts. They could also be right.
Sophism
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 12:44 AM   #66
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
No, not the same possibility. Please go back and re-read post #45.

Depends on the context. True or false is not the same as good or evil. One is a means of comparison for something observable (and therefore outside this "human concept" mumbo jumbo). The other is a human construct (so far as I'm willing to argue). They are not equal, just as any other context you wish to provide for the nebulous terms you used above.

Including yours. *Poof* your argument disappears. We're all prepared to move along. How about you?

Sophism
1. Mate, I already answered that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
EDIT: Let me just paint a picture here, so that maybe this makes more sense. I know that if I were to claim that nothing is true, then my argument can't be true, and if my argument can't be true, then something has to be true. That's a paradox. I know that, I logically recognise that. Which is why, during the course of this debate, I have instead suggested that things can be both true and untrue, but we don't have the capability to recognise which is which, because we can create that which is not real, mistake it for real, and be wrong.
2. So you're absolutely right about your observations? See point 1.

3. I was willing to end the debate on the basis that our arguments could all go *poof*, or they cannot. Trying to say otherwise would be a concept, that can be wrong, or can be right, if what I'm saying is right, which it could be wrong.

4. Failing to see what defining the concept I have already admitted could be wrong or right does for your argument.

My friend, we have reached an impass which you cannot further disreputate my argument without running the risk that I am right and you are wrong, and I cannot further prove my argument as right without running the risk of also being wrong. Again, I admire the tenacity, but I think you'll find that you're going to keep circling around the same point that can't be proven over and over, because, as T_A said:
Quote:
Its just, I'd expand upon the debate if there was anything to debate about. Being that I'm a Nihilist for the most part, I get where you are coming from and understand it enough to articulate it, but due to my own human flaws have a hard time comprehending it fully. And, well, by definition it is seemingly impossible to comprehend.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 01:02 AM   #67
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
My friend, we have reached an impass which you cannot further disreputate my argument...
At no point has that been my job.

Burden of proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
...without running the risk that I am right and you are wrong...
I have no stake in your claims, therefore there is no risk to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
...and I cannot further prove my argument as right without running the risk of also being wrong.
Gee, that didn't sound like such a horrible thing when you were asking us to consider that we were the ones that didn't get it. I guess that shoe only fits on one foot?
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 01:07 AM   #68
Adavardes
Junior Member
 
Adavardes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
At no point has that been my job.

Burden of proof
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes
Diffusion of responsibility on the person claiming something, IE, certain debate etiquette, could also be wrong, or right.
Burden of proof = debate etiquette.



It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built.
Adavardes is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 01:11 AM   #69
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
Burden of proof = debate etiquette.
Sophism

And with that, I'm finished. The last word is yours lest some resurrects the discussion with something worth discussing.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 01:16 AM   #70
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Student: How do I know I exist?
Professor: And whom shall I say is asking?

Saying 'all things are subjective' is an absolute.... We may work within a set human construct, but it's based on what we as most humans can normally experience, see, feel, measure, and so forth in a generally similar way (severe mental illness excluded, since the brain chemistry/anatomy/physiology prevents normal perception). The wavelength of green light is a fact. Whether we as humans can see it correctly or not is a perception issue, but it doesn't change the light's wavelength. Some things are true regardless of our human limits and subjectivity.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 06:25 AM   #71
vanir
Forumite
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: south of Gundagai
Posts: 632
Um...definitely not wanting to get in the middle of this argument, but have an inkling where it might have, in small part come from (or why it's being held onto with such determination).

Adavardes, schizophrenia is the misinterpretation of normal social stimuli by an incorrectly adapted brain chemistry (typically for deeply rooted emotional reasons such as child sexual abuse). People with schizophrenia might hear voices and they're not making it up, their mind is attaching memory associations to everyday stimuli in an unnatural fashion (sounding just like a disembodied voice they can hear through their ears just like the real thing). Hence the victims are generally paranoid, since they're extremely distressed by their strict medical illness, to say the least.
As an example, you were sexually abused by a man with dark coloured glasses and a gruff voice whilst heavy metal was playing in the background. Years later you move next door to someone who quietly plays heavy metal (most of the time you can't hear it and it doesn't bother you), but after several months you begin seeing faces at the window, a man with dark coloured glasses. Frightened, knowing there is nobody there you flee to the bathroom and lock yourself in, but hear a gruff voice yelling abuse at you from outside. Only you can hear it.
Get the picture?

The first strategy is learning to tell yourself to let reality go. Nothing's real, so that way you can say, even though you know this is real, since nothing is real it doesn't matter. It's not real just because you say it isn't, even if those things are still happening all the time real as daylight. You learn to ignore them with your hand over your ears and your eyes closed saying the mantra, "not real, not real, not real..."

But it doesn't work. You go loopey like that.

What works in the end is fully understanding what is happening to you. What your mind is doing to you in spite of yourself. And it is as simple as the medical explanations you've been getting all along (because trust me 99% of all schizophrenics immediately seek help). Most of the trick is in fact finding a doctor you get along with well enough that they explain in the way which best suits you, someone who has a bit of empathy for you.


Now I'm not saying that any of this relates to you at all Adavardes. Quite the contrary. I think somewhere in your subconscious you've been levelling this genuine modern social concern through the arguments you've presented here. They seem structured such a way. Quite admirable actually.

But as has been mentioned more or less by some and others, good scientific process is the key. When reality becomes questionable, personally or professionally, strict scientific protocols clear it all up nicely.

Facts can be absolutely true. Not always, but they can be
vanir is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 11:26 AM   #72
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Interestingly, if someone really did take solipsism to its logical end, they'd be much more like a hard realist than the odd skeptical doubter. Adavardes' continual attachment to the metaphysical-objective here is the only thing that allows him to doubt as he does, yet that seems strangely contradictory to his claim that our ideas are "human constructs." Why make such an exception?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 01:44 PM   #73
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanir View Post
Facts can be absolutely true. Not always, but they can be
Perhaps I could better understand the argument if you could provide an example of a time where a fact was false. Not an example where we misunderstood a fact and had to revise our model after further observation, but where a fact was something other than a fact.

Thanks in advance.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 03:31 PM   #74
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Perhaps I could better understand the argument if you could provide an example of a time where a fact was false. Not an example where we misunderstood a fact and had to revise our model after further observation, but where a fact was something other than a fact.

Thanks in advance.
Ah. Your argument is based on exceptions.

Whole civilizations believed these were absolute facts -

(1) World is flat.
(2) Universe revolved around the Earth.
(3) Greek Gods.
(4) Salem Witch Trials. Methodologies for detecting witches.
(5) Earth is hollow.
(6) King Tut is an actual god.
(7) Sun is the only harbanger of gravity in our solar system.
(8) The universe is slowing down.
(9) Life can't exist without conditions similar to our own.
(10) Gods control the weather.
(11) There is nothing beyond Pluto.
(12) Large sea monsters will swallow whole fleets of ships.
(13) Earth's center has a sun.
(14) Large civilizations exist near the Earth's core.
(15) The Atom is the smallest mollecule.
(16) Etc...

Modern day human facts are not absolute.
Yar-El is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 03:35 PM   #75
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Ah. Your argument is based on exceptions.
And your rebuttal is based on a lack of understanding the difference between a fact and a model.

All of your examples are models of understanding. None of them are facts.

"That bird is black" is a fact. "All birds are black" is a model which can be altered by the introduction of new facts, such as the observation of a bird which is not black.

So again, can someone please provide an example of a time where a fact was not a fact.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 03:53 PM   #76
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And your rebuttal is based on a lack of understanding the difference between a fact and a model.

All of your examples are models of understanding. None of them are facts.

"That bird is black" is a fact. "All birds are black" is a model which can be altered by the introduction of new facts, such as the observation of a bird which is not black.

So again, can someone please provide an example of a time where a fact was not a fact.
Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions. Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true. They were not models of understanding at the time. I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made. Facts are not absolute from where I sit; thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed. Nothing modern man has developed is absolute. Thanks Achilles.
Yar-El is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 04:06 PM   #77
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions. Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true. They were not models of understanding at the time. I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made. Facts are not absolute from where I sit; thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed. Nothing modern man has developed is absolute. Thanks Achilles.
only none of the things you mentioned were proven via empirical evidence or were never considered facts~



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 04:10 PM   #78
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions.
I'm simply pointing out that what you think a fact is and what a fact actually is are not the same thing.

I've invited you to provide a single example to support the claim that facts are not always facts, and you've yet to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true.
No doubt, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Building bad models based on facts is an argument against the unreliability of bad models, not of facts themselves.

The sun still appears to go around the earth even though our understanding of the cosmos allows us to know that the opposite it true. The fact it appears this way didn't change because we got a better model. The model got better because we made better observations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
They were not models of understanding at the time.
Of course they were. The people that believed that the sun went around the earth absolutely accepted that this was understood to be true. Doesn't mean that it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made.
No exception was asked for. I only set the requirement that we keep apples in the apple cart and oranges in the orange cart. Your argument that apples and oranges are indistinguishable from one another is the impasse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Facts are not absolute from where I sit;
Your LF alias is "Yar-El". True or false? Fact or not-fact?

Please let me know where you see the grey matter in this example. Because I don't see any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
...thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed.
No, the models do. Usually when new facts are discovered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Nothing modern man has developed is absolute.
Moving the goalpost. This isn't a discussion the "absolute nature of man's creations". It's a discussion as to whether or not facts exist. Please try to keep it on-topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar-El View Post
Thanks Achilles.
My pleasure.
Achilles is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 05:11 PM   #79
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,765
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
(5) Earth is hollow.
Care to source that?
Quote:
(6) King Tut is an actual god.
Please don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. Unless you would like to regale us with your vast knowledge of the netjeru and their relationship with the netjer nefer?
Quote:
(10) Gods control the weather.
Actually, approx. 2bn people still believe that. cf: The Fifth Way.
Quote:
Modern day human facts are not absolute.
Define 'absolute', 'fact', 'modern', and non-human facts, kthx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So again, can someone please provide an example of a time where a fact was not a fact.
That sounds like a challenge.

How about the 'fact' that burning releases the phlogiston in a substance?



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may:
Old 01-06-2009, 05:21 PM   #80
Yar-El
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 783
Current Game: The Witcher
My curiosity couldn't resist this -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Moving the goalpost. This isn't a discussion the "absolute nature of man's creations". It's a discussion as to whether or not facts exist. Please try to keep it on-topic.
This subject was spawned from my original statement. I wasn't the one who moved the goalpost. All of my replys focused on man created facts not being absolute. I mentioned that line several times; therfore, I wasn't talking about is there a absolute truth to the universe? You can check back even to the previous thread.
Yar-El is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Hot Topics > Absolute Fact / Universal Truth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.