Is anything absolute?

[Mace]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

When I first de-converted from Christianity I beheld Logic and Reason as the universal good, the right, the absolute highest achievement of humanity. I began to question even this, wondering if there were absolutes. It's clear that logic is a tool used by humans to better their state of existence, but is it absolute?

I, unfortunately, don't know enough to answer these questions, so I'm asking the collective education of IIDB's students here.

Is there anything to be counted as absolute in reality?

NOTE: Along the lines of me defining my questions, words, etc. incorrectly and such--please correct me.

[untermensche]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

When I first de-converted from Christianity I beheld Logic and Reason as the universal good, the right, the absolute highest achievement of humanity. I began to question even this, wondering if there were absolutes. It's clear that logic is a tool used by humans to better their state of existence, but is it absolute?

I, unfortunately, don't know enough to answer these questions, so I'm asking the collective education of IIDB's students here.

Is there anything to be counted as absolute in reality?

NOTE: Along the lines of me defining my questions, words, etc. incorrectly and such--please correct me.
All that you know or see or feel will be washed away in the huge sea of time.

Live for today, and for whatever days you have left. Do nothing for eternity.

[RexT]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?
I would say no, but then would my answer be absolute or subject to uncertainty?

There is one thing that seems pretty certain, as untermensche alludes to, and that is our departure from this world. I will not use the word death, for it is not known whether we ever die, but depart this world and leaving behind our physical form seems almost absolute.

Rex

[Mace]

So, you could mark the birth and death of physical existence as absolute? Though, that'd propose theories such as brain-in-a-vat, solipsism, etc.

[Mace]

All that you know or see or feel will be washed away in the huge sea of time.

Live for today, and for whatever days you have left. Do nothing for eternity.

I guess that's a vital part of my question. Though, I asked this previously--wondering what good life was if it wasn't forever. I suppose it relates.

[RexT]

So, you could mark the birth and death of physical existence as absolute? Though, that'd propose theories such as brain-in-a-vat, solipsism, etc.
How do you see our coming and going as leading to those theories?

It seems that when a light is on, it is absolutely on and when it is off, it is absolutely off, but this may not be the case. Physicists describe a state of energy at the lowest possible level as the ground state. Thus, according to the uncertainty principle, the light is not absolutely off, there remains a tiny amount of fluctuation also called zero point energy.

Therefore, life and death are not necessarily absolutes.

Rex

[Mace]

But couldn't the same apply to coming into this world as it does to leaving this world in a physical sense?

[RexT]

But couldn't the same apply to coming into this world as it does to leaving this world in a physical sense?
Exactly, the same applies either way. For the beginning of one event is merely the end of another or vise versa.

Rex

[Bob K]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

When I first de-converted from Christianity I beheld Logic and Reason as the universal good, the right, the absolute highest achievement of humanity. I began to question even this, wondering if there were absolutes. It's clear that logic is a tool used by humans to better their state of existence, but is it absolute?

...

Is there anything to be counted as absolute in reality?

...

What is your operational definition of absolute(s)? non-absolute(s).]

Or universal good? universal bad.]

Or highest achievement (of humanity)? lowest achievement (of humanity).]

If you do not provide operational definitions of the terms/phrases you choose to use, then you risk (A) not intuiting the natural/logical relationships between/among people/objects/events which would enable you to develop answers to questions which interest you/concern you and/or (B) communications confusions and misunderstandings.

[Witt]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

When I first de-converted from Christianity I beheld Logic and Reason as the universal good, the right, the absolute highest achievement of humanity. I began to question even this, wondering if there were absolutes. It's clear that logic is a tool used by humans to better their state of existence, but is it absolute?

I, unfortunately, don't know enough to answer these questions, so I'm asking the collective education of IIDB's students here.

Is there anything to be counted as absolute in reality?

NOTE: Along the lines of me defining my questions, words, etc. incorrectly and such--please correct me.

No, there cannot be absolutes in the sense that you imply.

It is false to say that 2+2=4 is always true, surely it cannot be true without mind!

There cannot be a method of deciding such presumed absolutes...Godel.

i.e. there are no absolute truths at all.

[kennethamy]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

When I first de-converted from Christianity I beheld Logic and Reason as the universal good, the right, the absolute highest achievement of humanity. I began to question even this, wondering if there were absolutes. It's clear that logic is a tool used by humans to better their state of existence, but is it absolute?

I, unfortunately, don't know enough to answer these questions, so I'm asking the collective education of IIDB's students here.

Is there anything to be counted as absolute in reality?

NOTE: Along the lines of me defining my questions, words, etc. incorrectly and such--please correct me.

Absolute how, and absolute in what sense? As I pointed out in a different thread, you cannot just throw about terms like "absolute" and "reality" out of any context, and expect anyone to know what you have in mind, and try to give you a sensible answer. And the same goes for "reality". It is as if someone were to ask, "What is it to eat potatoes?" (although even that is more specific than your question). Could you simply understand what that person was asking, and give a sensible answer? I know I couldn't.

[RexT]

i.e. there are no absolute truths at all.
Are you stating an absolute truth? If so then you have refuted your own statement.

Rex

[Mace]

What is your operational definition of absolute(s)? non-absolute(s).]

Or universal good? universal bad.]

Or highest achievement (of humanity)? lowest achievement (of humanity).]

This is why I abandoned that mindset, as I stated above. I can't think of anything that could be counted as objective.

Absolute how, and absolute in what sense?

The best definition I can muster is "something that is objective."

[kennethamy]

This is why I abandoned that mindset, as I stated above. I can't think of anything that could be counted as objective.



The best definition I can muster is "something that is objective."

That would be helpful, if you could help me with "objective". As I understand the term "objective" (and I admit, my understanding is a little shaky) may mean, "independent of what anyone believes, or hopes for", in other words, mind-independent. Is that what you mean? On the other hand, sometimes "objective" means something like "free of bias" and arrived at by using reason and evidence. Is that what you mean?

But you can understand that no one can possibly answer your question about "absolute" until there is some agreement about what you are asking. After all, the term "absolute" (as you are using it) is not a term which is in ordinary language, like "table". You are using it as a kind of philosophical technical term. So it is really up to you to let your reader know what you mean by it.

Someone who asks, "is knowledge absolute?" might have something in mind, but suppose someone asked, "are mashed potatoes absolute?" Would you know what that person had in mind?

[Mace]

I can best explain my definition of the term "absolute" by saying that "absolute" is something proven beyond a doubt to be true.

[kennethamy]

I can best explain my definition of the term "absolute" by saying that "absolute" is something proven beyond a doubt to be true.

So if, as someone suggested, knowledge is absolute, that would mean that knowledge is something proven beyond doubt to be true.

But it that is what "knowledge is absolute" means, then knowledge is absolute, indeed, since it is clear that if someone knows something it is true. For instance, I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and it be false that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. For if I claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and it turns out not to be true that it is, then I did not know it in the first place.

So, I guess that what you mean is what someone would ordinarily mean if he were asked whether what he said was true, really was true (E.G. Mary and Tim are going to be divorced! Is that true?! Absolutely!) Have I got it?

[Mace]

Yes.

[Black Badger]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

In any search for absolutes, you're going to run into an awful lot of semantic difficulties.

I see quite a few absolutes in the world. It seems about as absolute as you can get to say that I can't walk through a brick wall. But that statement could be nitpicked apart in all sorts of ways by somebody who felt so inclined. Even so, it still wouldn't change the fact that I had intended to convey.

My point is, if anything is absolute, it ain't words. Words are black and white chunks of meaning superimposed onto a gray reality.

If you're honest in how you use your words, and recognize their inherent conceptual limitations, you'll be well equipped in your search for absolutes.

But even if you find any, don't expect to be able to prove their absoluteness to anybody.

[Breath]

Is there anything that be remarked as absolute in the reality that we perceive?

That you perceived what you perceived is absolutely so. This reduces to the following statement: the past is absolute.

[RexT]

That you perceived what you perceived is absolutely so. This reduces to the following statement: the past is absolute.
Good point, for the past can in no way be affected by any present or future event. Thus, whatever occured, is absolute in the sense that it cannot be altered, it is therefore immutable or absolute. Yet, in another sense, it no longer even exists.

Rex

[Preno]

That you perceived what you perceived is absolutely so. This reduces to the following statement: the past is absolute.Really? I think not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory)
My point is, if anything is absolute, it ain't words. Words are black and white chunks of meaning superimposed onto a gray reality.So what else can be 'absolute', if not words (or rather, propositions)? Is water 'absolute'?

[Breath]

Really? I think not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory)


You are confusing between what is real and what is true. The quality of consciousness is not a relational proposition. There is no truth test for it, it simply was what it was.

[Preno]

You are confusing between what is real and what is true. The quality of consciousness is not a relational proposition. There is no truth test for it, it simply was what it was.Yes, to say it was what it was is true, because it is tautologous. However, your knowledge of what it was may be severely distorted. So what does "the past is absolute" mean, then?

[Breath]

Yes, to say it was what it was is true, because it is tautologous. However, your knowledge of what it was may be severely distorted. So what does "the past is absolute" mean, then?

If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so. Truth and knowledge doesn't come into it at all. It is only in taking an external point of view of an absolute reality, which is by necessity already past when assuming that POV, that truth and knowledge come into it.

[Breath]

Good point, for the past can in no way be affected by any present or future event. Thus, whatever occured, is absolute in the sense that it cannot be altered, it is therefore immutable or absolute. Yet, in another sense, it no longer even exists.

Rex

Agreed.

For an idealist x=x would be absolute, presently. But that's idealism.

But for die-hard phenomenologist the absolute reality is that x was. When the present becomes known it is the past.

[Witt]

Are you stating an absolute truth? If so then you have refuted your own statement.

Rex

Nonsense.
<edit>
It is not the case that there is any truth, that is absolute.
To say that there are no absolute truths does no imply that this is absolute!!
<edit>

[DBT]

It seems that when a light is on, it is absolutely on and when it is off, it is absolutely off, but this may not be the case. Physicists describe a state of energy at the lowest possible level as the ground state. Thus, according to the uncertainty principle, the light is not absolutely off, there remains a tiny amount of fluctuation also called zero point energy.

Therefore, life and death are not necessarily absolutes.

Rex

I don't know - perhaps ultimately you can reduce everything to a state of random quantum fluctuations, but on the level that we live our lives, a light appears to be either on or it is off, and we appear to be either alive or we are dead, if we permanently lose our sight - it can never be regained.....

For all practical purposes, our lives appear to be governed by absolutes. Though, going beyond the level on which we function, our 'absolutes' become imperceivable.

[RexT]

Nonsense.
<edit>
It is not the case that there is any truth, that is absolute.
To say that there are no absolute truths does no imply that this is absolute!!
<edit>
Then what does it imply? It sounds like you are giving an answer, but if the answer is not absolute then it is not an answer but some fuzzy probability. Yet, you did not state it as a probability, you stated it as though it were an answer.

Rex

[kennethamy]

That you perceived what you perceived is absolutely so. This reduces to the following statement: the past is absolute.

That I perceived what I perceived: and that I will perceive what I will perceive; and that I do perceive what I do perceive; are all true. But then, all dogs are dogs, and all tautologies are tautologies, are also true. But hardly significant. There is nothing profound about a verbal truth.

The past is absolutely-What? The past certainly happened. That's true. (And another trivial tautology), but that we are absolutely certain about what happened in the past is false.

Why posters pronounce trivial verbal truths as though they were insights into non-verbal reality is absolutely beyond me.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day, and the water will be freezing. Stay in it for half an hour, and the water will be tepid. But the water has not changed - your perception has.

Which is the "actual" temperature? Neither. Both. It's a boiling sea of virtual quarks. It's a frozen wasteland with a barely detectable wisp of atmosphere shielding you from the absolute zero of space. It's a radiation-bathed pressure-cooker utterly opaque hell full of toxic solvents.

All these viewpoints are equally valid. There is no 'correct' version, merely a set of consistent ones.

I'm skirting around an idea I can't quite express, possibly because the TV is on.

Symbols, thoughts and language refer only to qualia, not to phenomena - and there exists no unique mapping between the two. A bit like Hume's fork. We cannot access other people's qualia, so all we can do is project our own mapping and hope it holds up in translation.

I'm putting this really badly, but whatever I actually mean (oh, the irony) comes pretty close to the entire problem, I think.

[kennethamy]

Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day, and the water will be freezing. Stay in it for half an hour, and the water will be tepid. But the water has not changed - your perception has.

Which is the "actual" temperature? Neither. .

Neither heat nor cold are temperature. They are the way the temperature affects our bodies and senses. But, of course, there is an actual temperature, and it can be measured with a thermometer. Buy one, and try it. And the temperature of the water is the same however hot or cold it feels.

And, by the way, there is absolute zero, the temperature of a substance when its molecules are no longer in motion.

[RexT]

When the present becomes known it is the past.
Yeah, time is a bitch, for so many reasons. One is never able to reconcile time with experience. What we experience is such a mystery to me, for it feels like it happens without time, yet, I know that time is ever present, flowing, changing and providing new experience.

I have never really developed a philosophy of time, though I have given it much consideration. The bits and peices I have managed to put together are too incomplete to present any understanding of it. I would imagine that it remains one of the great mysteries. Yet, I believe that time is key to understanding reality, for whoever can master this beast is master indeed, and I fear that I may not in this life become the master of time.

Anyway, it seems you have a better grasp of it than me.

Rex

[His Noodly Appendage]

Sure. There's a single reality out there.

But we can't refer to it, even to ourselves, in any objective way, because there exists no unique (nor even any constant) mapping between phenomena and qualia.

[RexT]

I don't know - perhaps ultimately you can reduce everything to a state of random quantum fluctuations, but on the level that we live our lives, a light appears to be either on or it is off, and we appear to be either alive or we are dead, if we permanently lose our sight - it can never be regained.....

For all practical purposes, our lives appear to be governed by absolutes. Though, going beyond the level on which we function, our 'absolutes' become imperceivable.
Well, you put it so concisely and cleverly that I cannot argue with you. Yes, for all practical purposes our life and death is absolute. Still, there is a tiny hope that some small essence of whatever we are and our lives here on earth will not vanish into an absolute oblivion, but will continue, and that it may become part of some other meaningful life or life system. As what we are continues to carry and preserve the remnants of lives past, stored in our DNA and in the far reaches of our repressed memories, there still lives the myriad of forms through which we evolved, even the star dust ,of which made the atoms we are composed.

Rex

[RexT]

And, by the way, there is absolute zero, the temperature of a substance when its molecules are no longer in motion.
This claim is purely theoretical and totally unsupported by experiment.

Rex

[kennethamy]

if we permanently lose our sight - it can never be regained.....

.

I like that insight into reality. If we lose our sight forever, we'll never get it back. Who would have guessed? (Another tautology parading as a profundity).

[RexT]

I like that insight into reality. If we lose our sight forever, we'll never get it back. Who would have guessed? (Another tautology parading as a profundity).
Naw, it was meant merely as an example to make another point, one I see that did not catch your attention.

Rex

[kennethamy]

Naw, it was meant merely as an example to make another point, one I see that did not catch your attention.

Rex

Example of what to make what point? There were so many profundities whizzing around that it was too hard to concentrate on any particular one. But this one about how when you lose your sight permanently you'll never get it back really caught my eye. It seemed somehow so typical.

[DBT]

Example of what to make what point? There were so many profundities whizzing around that it was too hard to concentrate on any particular one. But this one about how when you lose your sight permanently you'll never get it back really caught my eye. It seemed somehow so typical.

Aren't you reading too much into a casual comment?

[kennethamy]

This claim is purely theoretical and totally unsupported by experiment.

Rex

It is? Are you telling me that scientists do not know that temperature is a function of molecular motion, and what happens as molecular motion slows and then stops. Did you know that they have attained temperatures very close to absolute zero in laboratories?

Galileo's inclined plane experiments told us how bodies act in free fall, which is "purely theoretical". What do you think that theoretical physics is all about?

But what is funny is that you (and others) present a list of "absolutes" although you never explain why they are supposed to be absolutes (why is birth an absolute? Why is death an absolute?) and then, when I point out an absolute that physics tells us about, why that's what you dismiss! So, in the instance where we know what we are talking about, that is the instance you don't care about, but when we don't know what we are talking about is when you are passionately interested. We have a clear idea of what absolute zero is, but I have no idea at all why you tell me that birth and death are "absolutes". What is it that they have that make them "absolutes"? Can you say?

[kennethamy]

Aren't you reading too much into a casual comment?

But the rest of what you wrote must then have been just as casual.

[DBT]

But the rest of what you wrote must then have been just as casual.

Yes, but I think the central point remains valid.

[RexT]

It seemed somehow so typical.
Yes, I have noticed that it is the typical that often catches your attention and seldom the profound.

Rex

[RexT]

Did you know that they have attained temperatures very close to absolute zero in laboratories?
Are you aware that very close is a bit shy of absolute?

Rex

[kennethamy]

Yes, but I think the central point remains valid.

And that point was? I think I must have missed it, I was so distracted by the accompanying profundities. Was it that our "lives are governed by absolutes". But what does that mean? You mentioned death and birth, I think, as "absolutes". So, again, I ask you, what makes death and birth "absolutes"? Death is, so far as I can tell, final. But if that is what makes it an "absolute", then what is it that makes birth an absolute? Birth isn't final (in any sense I know of).

Don't you think you ought to explain what it is that makes something an "absolute"?

[kennethamy]

Are you aware that very close is a bit shy of absolute?

Rex


But we know what it would be for temperature to be at absolute zero even though we cannot actually produce it in the laboratory. Can you come even close to telling me what is would be for something to be "an absolute". You give a host of examples of what you call "absolutes" but never tell anyone what it is they have in common that makes them all what you call "absolutes".

In the early dialogues, Socrates poses questions like, "what is courage?" or "what his justice" and the people who have used these terms, reply to him by giving him what they think are examples of courage and justice. But Socrates always reminds them that his quest is not for examples of these "things". His quest is for what it is that these alleged examples have in common that make them examples of courage or of justice. For how can we possibly tell whether this or that is an example of something unless we know what that thing is. In the same way, you and others list example of what you call absolutes. But how am I to tell whether they are examples of absolutes unless I know what an absolute is?

The orginal OP was the question, is anything absolute? But giving us what you believe are absolutes (birth, death, etc.) is of no help unless I know why birth and death are absolutes. And I have no idea why. So you can present me with a list of what you say are absolutes as long as my arm, and I will be no closer to understanding why you call those things "absolutes" or how to continue the list, or, most important, know whether what you call absolutes are absolutes unless you explain to me what as absolute is. What it is that all the things you say are absolutes have in common that make them absolutes.

[DBT]

So, again, I ask you, what makes death and birth "absolutes"? Death is, so far as I can tell, final. But if that is what makes it an "absolute"


Depends on how you care to define absolute. I clearly stipulated that I meant absolute, in this instance, as being the being the irrevocable changes we experience on the level that we live our lives.
In this context, the finality of death may, for us, be called an absolute.

The concept of an Absolute in the true sense seems to be meaningless.

[kennethamy]

Depends on how you care to define absolute. I clearly stipulated that I meant absolute in this instance as being the being the irrevocable changes we experience on the level that we live our lives.
In this context, the finality of death may, for us, be called an absolute.


But why is birth an "absolute" then? And what other things are absolutes, and how do they fit your definition, which I must say, isn't all that clear. For instance, some have called morality an absolute. Or knowledge. Do you agree, and how would they fall under your definition? Has your notion of "absolute" anything to do with the idea of absolute truth which others go on about? If not, what are they talking about? And can it really be that whether something is absolute or not depends on whose definition of "absolute" we light upon. I suppose I am asking you, then, is what is absolute relative to a particular individual's definition of "absolute"? Is that philosophically helpful, since in that case, you and (say) Rex T. may be talking about entirely different things. How am I, a wanderer in this field of absolutes, to tell whether you or Rex T. is right about what he or you say are absolutes. Is there anything in common between what you and what someone else says is an absolute?


About your definition, what is a "level at which we live our lives"? At how many levels do we live our lives? And "irrevocable change". If my arm is amputated, that would surely be an irrevocable change. No more arm. Would that we an absolute? You see how confused I am about all this.

[RexT]

But we know what it would be for temperature to be at absolute zero even though we cannot actually produce it in the laboratory. Can you come even close to telling me what is would be for something to be "an absolute". You give a host of examples of what you call "absolutes" but never tell anyone what it is they have in common that makes them all what you call "absolutes".

In the early dialogues, Socrates poses questions like, "what is courage?" or "what his justice" and the people who have used these terms, reply to him by giving him what they think are examples of courage and justice. But Socrates always reminds them that his quest is not for examples of these "things". His quest is for what it is that these alleged examples have in common that make them examples of courage or of justice. For how can we possibly tell whether this or that is an example of something unless we know what that thing is. In the same way, you and others list example of what you call absolutes. But how am I to tell whether they are examples of absolutes unless I know what an absolute is?

The orginal OP was the question, is anything absolute? But giving we what you believe are absolutes (birth, death, etc.) is of no help unless I know why birth and death are absolutes. And I have no idea why. So you can present me with a list of what you say are absolutes as long as my arm, and I will be no closer to understanding why you call those things "absolutes" or how to continue the list, or, most important, know whether what you call absolutes are absolutes unless you explain to me what as absolute is. What is is that all the things you say are absolutes have in common that make them absolutes.
Ok, first, you may think you know what absolute is by theorizing about absolute zero, yet, absolute zero is merely a number. Look at it (0), see the zero? Now do you know what absolute is? Of course not, for it merely looks like any other number. In actuality, there is no such thing as absolute zero. Very close is just that, and it does not give us any understanding of absolute, for very close merely looks like any other distance from absolute.

Therefore, the example of life or death is no more an example than absolute zero. Yet, we conceptualize about absolute because these examples and others, seem to infer its existence. Absolute has no referent of any kind. If such were even possible, it would be of no value at all, and even zero has a value by our sense of numerical values. It has a place and a referent. In a binary system for example, it refers to not-1.

Rex

[DBT]

About your definition, what is a "level at which we live our lives"? At how many levels do we live our lives?

Let's see now, it certainly isn't on the quantum level. Nor can our existence be measured by cosmic time scales and proportions. So where does that leave us?


And "irrevocable change". If my arm is amputated, that would surely be an irrevocable change. No more arm. Would that we an absolute?

To you personally? - yes.

[kennethamy]

Ok, first, you may think you know what absolute is by theorizing about absolute zero, yet, absolute zero is merely a number. Look at it (0), see the zero? Now do you know what absolute is? Of course not, for it merely looks like any other number. In actuality, there is no such thing as absolute zero. Very close is just that, and it does not give us any understanding of absolute, for very close merely looks like any other distance from absolute.

Therefore, the example of life or death is no more an example than absolute zero. Yet, we conceptualize about absolute because these examples and others, seem to infer its existence. Absolute has no referent of any kind. If such were even possible, it would be of no value at all, and even zero has a value by our sense of numerical values. It has a place and a referent. In a binary system for example, it refers to not-1.

Rex


"0" is certainly a number, and so is 32 F. a number. But that doesn't stop people from knowing that water turns into a solid at that temperature. And it doesn't stop physicists from knowing that at absolute zero, molecules cease movement. So, what is the matter with numbers?

I don't quite get you. Are you saying that when we call death or birth absolutes (if we do) we are saying anything like what we are saying when we say that when molecules are inert the temperature is at absolute zero? And what do you mean, "absolute" has no referent at all. I thought you were talking about something when you said that birth is an "absolute". But if "absolute" has no referent, then what on earth are you saying?

Look, if you are going to say that birth and death (and a whole host of other things, e.g. truth, or knowledge, or God knows what else) are absolutes, then you must mean that birth and death (and the others) have some common feature (or features) that you are pointing at when you say that they are absolutes, and it is this common feature in virtue of which they are absolutes. Just as if you call sparrows, and robin, and penguins birds, you must be saying that all three kinds have some feature or features in common which lead you (and others) to classify them together. So, all I am asking you, is to tell me what common feature birth and death and perhaps truth or morality, and so on, have in common that lead you to classify them together as absolutes. If you cannot tell me that, then you cannot tell me what you mean when you use to adjective "absolute" about different things.

[RexT]

"0" is certainly a number, and so is 32 F. a number. But that doesn't stop people from knowing that water turns into a solid at that temperature. And it doesn't stop physicists from knowing that at absolute zero, molecules cease movement. So, what is the matter with numbers?

I don't quite get you. Are you saying that when we call death or birth absolutes (if we do) we are saying anything like what we are saying when we say that when molecules are inert the temperature is at absolute zero? And what do you mean, "absolute" has no referent at all. I thought you were talking about something when you said that birth is an "absolute". But if "absolute" has no referent, then what on earth are you saying?

Look, if you are going to say that birth and death (and a whole host of other things, e.g. truth, or knowledge, or God knows what else) are absolutes, then you must mean that birth and death (and the others) have some common feature (or features) that you are pointing at when you say that they are absolutes, and it is this common feature in virtue of which they are absolutes. Just as if you call sparrows, and robin, and penguins birds, you must be saying that all three kinds have some feature or features in common which lead you (and others) to classify them together. So, all I am asking you, is to tell me what common feature birth and death and perhaps truth or morality, and so on, have in common that lead you to classify them together as absolutes. If you cannot tell me that, then you cannot tell me what you mean when you use to adjective "absolute" about different things.
I have already told you that there is no such thing as absolute. Scientists do not know what would happen to molecules if they reached absolute zero, for such has never been observed. What they have is an inference by deductive reasoning that molecules would cease movement, but since nothing has ever ceased movement, it is merely a guess following an inference. It is this inference that all supposed absolutes have in common. Death infers the cessation of life, (whatever that is), life infers the cessation of none life (whatever that is), absolute zero infers the cessation of molecular motion (whatever that is) and so on. Got it?

Now, if you would like to discuss inference then you will see that it is this that leads to the concept of absolute, yet there is no example of an inference to the absolute having been actualized. It may seem to us that death would be final and therefore the epitome of absolute, but unfortunately, no one has ever observed death from the perspective of being dead and returned to report this. Well, there are cases of NDE, but these are unreliable. There is the case of deep sleep, where it seems that we are momentarily nonexistent, but even this has been reported by some as an experience of bliss or peace or freedom or something like that. The only other example I can think of was the time before we were born, but I really do not remember that time and cannot speak about it.

Rex

[Breath]

That I perceived what I perceived: and that I will perceive what I will perceive; and that I do perceive what I do perceive; are all true. But then, all dogs are dogs, and all tautologies are tautologies, are also true. But hardly significant. There is nothing profound about a verbal truth.

There is nothing in the OP requesting profundity, the question is about absolutes.

[Breath]

Neither heat nor cold are temperature. They are the way the temperature affects our bodies and senses. But, of course, there is an actual temperature, and it can be measured with a thermometer. Buy one, and try it. And the temperature of the water is the same however hot or cold it feels.

Whatever was felt when you went in the water was absolutely that feeling. Whatever you read the thermometer to say was absolutely so as well. But to abstract an absolute "actual" temperature from that is to totally misunderstand the difference between the real and the ideal.

[kennethamy]

Whatever was felt when you went in the water was absolutely that feeling. Whatever you read the thermometer to say was absolutely so as well. But to abstract an absolute "actual" temperature from that is to totally misunderstand the difference between the real and the ideal.

I agree that whatever I feel is what I feel; and whatever I read the temperature is, is, whatever I read the temperature is. How could I not? Tautologies are, of course, tautologies. And if to say it is absolutely so that whatever I feel, I feel, and whatever I read, I read is to point out the trivially truistic nature of those sentences, I am in full agreement. As I pointed out, that whatever is a dog is a dog, and whatever is red is red, is also absolutely so, But it is hardly something to shout from the mountaintops that whatever is A is (undoubtedly, and unmistakenly) A. That is Aristotle's "law of identity", which most rational people know about.

As for the temperature: we measure the actual temperature in various ways: most commonly with a thermometer. That's why I stick one into a roast to make sure the roast is done (and let me inform you that when the roast is done it is (absolutely and irrevocably) done! I am not sure what it is that you mean by the ideal as contrasted with the real temperature, but as for me, the ideal temperature of a roast is about 300 degrees F. (when it is rare and juicy) but, alas, my oven is often not cooperative, and the real temperature of the roast often reaches 400F, and people often complain that it is overdone. I am afraid they are right. But perhaps you have some other notion of what the idea temperature of something (whatever it is) would be. I'll be happy to hear from you about it. In my language, which is English, we call the ideal temperature what we think the temperature should be, and the real temperature, the temperature it actually is. But maybe you are not speaking English, but some distortion called "philosophese". In that case you will have to explain it to me.

[kennethamy]

There is nothing in the OP requesting profundity, the question is about absolutes.

Yes indeed, absolutes. Now, what are those? No more examples, please. Just let me know what features something has to have in order to be an absolute. After that, of course, we can have some examples. The examples will be useful to test your definition of "absolute" which portends to be profound,

[kennethamy]

I have already told you that there is no such thing as absolute. Scientists do not know what would happen to molecules if they reached absolute zero, for such has never been observed. What they have is an inference by deductive reasoning that molecules would cease movement, but since nothing has ever ceased movement, it is merely a guess following an inference. It is this inference that all supposed absolutes have in common. Death infers the cessation of life, (whatever that is), life infers the cessation of none life (whatever that is), absolute zero infers the cessation of molecular motion (whatever that is) and so on. Got it?

Now, if you would like to discuss inference then you will see that it is this that leads to the concept of absolute, yet there is no example of an inference to the absolute having been actualized. It may seem to us that death would be final and therefore the epitome of absolute, but unfortunately, no one has ever observed death from the perspective of being dead and returned to report this. Well, there are cases of NDE, but these are unreliable. There is the case of deep sleep, where it seems that we are momentarily nonexistent, but even this has been reported by some as an experience of bliss or peace or freedom or something like that. The only other example I can think of was the time before we were born, but I really do not remember that time and cannot speak about it.

Rex

Funny, Charles' law of ideal gases (which have never been observed) is given as:



V1 / T1 = V2 / T2

Which tells us that the volume is directly proportional to the temperature of an ideal gas. Of course, no one has ever observed an ideal gas, but that doesn't matter since we do observe enough approximations to test the equation above.

No one has ever observed a neutrino, but physicists know all about neutrinos and their properties. And no one has ever observed the Big Bang, but the theory of the Big Bang is now established theory in cosmology. In fact, that is what theoretical science is all about. Theory. But you are not one to complain about lack of observation. When you observe an "absolute" whatever that might be, be sure to let me know.

By the way, you have, I am pretty sure, never observed Bankok, the capital of Thailand. Do you think there is such a place? Very few things we know exist are things we have actually observed. For instance, I suppose you know you have intestines, but I don't suppose you have ever observed them. (As least, I hope not). Most of what we know is unobserved, inferred from what we do observe. Can you say that about absolutes? (When, of course, you let me know what an absolute is).

Why would the finality of death make death an absolute? Is what makes death an absolute the same thing that makes birth (another of your examples) and absolute. How is birth "final"?

Let's use terms in such a way that not only can your reader understand what you are talking about, but you can do so as well.

[Preno]

If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so. Truth and knowledge doesn't come into it at all. It is only in taking an external point of view of an absolute reality, which is by necessity already past when assuming that POV, that truth and knowledge come into it.First, what is the link between claiming that "the past is absolute" and claiming that "If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so"? Second, are you claiming that for all x, "if I know x, it is absolutely so"? And if so, you still need to explain what you mean by saying that.

[kennethamy]

First, what is the link between claiming that "the past is absolute" and claiming that "If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so"? Second, are you claiming that for all x, "if I know x, it is absolutely so"? And if so, you still need to explain what you mean by saying that.

I think he just means, "If I remember myself to be Napolean, then, I remember myself to be Napoleon" And since that's a trivial tautology, it is very, very, very, true. And I am positive of it. As I said, tautologies are often paraded as "absolute truths" which, I am sure, in some sense, they are, because the term "absolute" in English is typically used to express strong confidence on the part of the speaker. E.g. "Are you sure that Mary and Joe are separating?" "Absolutely! Joe told me himself."

As for, the bit about knowing. Again, it is a tautology that if I know that something is true, then it is true. Thus, " If I know that Mars is the fourth planet (is true), then, I know that Mars is the fourth planet is true" ("And, I am sure of that"!) Which, of course, he well may be. Another tautology paraded as a profound truth.

It is like that earlier instance of "if I permanently lose my eyesight, I will never regain my sight" What a revelation!

P.S. This is off the point, but no one but Napoleon could remember himself to be Napoleon, since you cannot remember what is not true (although, of course, you can believe you remember all sorts of things).

[Breath]

But perhaps you have some other notion of what the idea temperature of something (whatever it is) would be. I'll be happy to hear from you about it. In my language, which is English, we call the ideal temperature what we think the temperature should be, and the real temperature, the temperature it actually is. But maybe you are not speaking English, but some distortion called "philosophese". In that case you will have to explain it to me.

Temperature is always an observation, a measurement of some kind. Whether you use the body's sense of how warm something is, or a mercury-based thermometer, or a thermometer with a digital readout, any proclamation about temperature is always going to be a relation between a number of factors, that will always reduce to an observer/consciousness feeling something, reading something, touching something, or the like.

So, it is real to say that "It feels warm in here" or "This thermometer reads 35 degrees". On the other hand, it is ideal to say "It is warm" or "It is 35 degrees" because the observer/consciousness has been abstracted out of a necessary role, without which the observation cannot be. It is ideal to talk about the qualities of the world as though they exist independently of the relationships which bring them into being.

[RexT]

It is ideal to talk about the qualities of the world as though they exist independently of the relationships which bring them into being.
Just for clarification, is your position that it requires an observer for things to exist, or that things exist independent of observation, perhaps in a way that is different than if there were an observation of them, or you fill in the blank?

Thanks

Rex

[Breath]

Yes indeed, absolutes. Now, what are those? No more examples, please. Just let me know what features something has to have in order to be an absolute. After that, of course, we can have some examples. The examples will be useful to test your definition of "absolute" which portends to be profound,

There are a few meanings of absolute that come to mind that shouldn't be contraversial.

One is "not-relative", the other one is "not-reducible".

Approaching this one negatively, any measurement will be readily understood to not be absolute, because all measurements are a comparison, a relating of one thing to another. On the other hand, the speed of light is said to be absolute, because its speed is independent of any inertial frame of reference.

With regards to non-reducibility, the very notion of "having a feature" would render something not absolute, because there would be the thing AND it's feature. To be absolute, something has to BE it's feature. This is why I say that any experience is absolute, because it is not a matter of there being consciousness OF something, consciousness IS the something. There is not consciousness OF blue, there IS blue. And that is irreducibly so.

I have not claimed profundity, you have attributed it, and then mocked it; but please be clear that you are mocking your own attribution.

[Breath]

First, what is the link between claiming that "the past is absolute" and claiming that "If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so"? Second, are you claiming that for all x, "if I know x, it is absolutely so"? And if so, you still need to explain what you mean by saying that.

I mean no more than that experience was absolutely and irreducibly itself. If I remember myself as Napoleon, I cannot in the same breath doubt that is what happened.

You use "to know" in an epistemological sense. That "to know" is in the same continuum as "to doubt". One can know and doubt meanings, but one cannot doubt what it is that one has attached the meaning to. Appearance as it's own, absolute object is quite different to the appearance of an object. I can doubt the meaning or value I have given something, but I cannot doubt that is what happened.

[kennethamy]

but I cannot doubt that is what happened.

Sure you can. Your memory might have played tricks on you. But, anyway, what has that to do with "absolutes"? When someone says that death or birth are "absolutes" what has that to do with the inability to doubt?

[Breath]

Just for clarification, is your position that it requires an observer for things to exist, or that things exist independent of observation, perhaps in a way that is different than if there were an observation of them, or you fill in the blank?

Thanks

Rex

Thanks for the question.

It is my position that there is a world independent of consciousness of it, and of course that is beyond proof. But what the world is, independent of consciousness of it, is beyond knowing. It is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose. It just is what it is.

Hope that clarifies.

[kennethamy]

Thanks for the question.

It is my position that there is a world independent of consciousness of it, and of course that is beyond proof. But what the world is, independent of consciousness of it, is beyond knowing. It is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose. It just is what it is.

Hope that clarifies.

You mean that you don't know that there was a world before you were born, nor a world that existed before there were people? Look up how long people have been around, and then look up how long the world has been around.

By the way, how did you find out that "the world is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose." Do you happen to recall where that information came from, or is that just a part of your credo?

[kennethamy]

If I remember myself to be Napoleon, that is absolutely so. Truth and knowledge doesn't come into it at all. It is only in taking an external point of view of an absolute reality, which is by necessity already past when assuming that POV, that truth and knowledge come into it.

How in the world can you remember you were Napoleon if you weren't Napoleon? You might, if demented, think you remember being Napoleon, but that is not remembering you were Napoleon. You can't remember what never was the case, or what never happened.

A. "I remember fighting in the battle of Waterloo"
B. "But you hadn't even been born then!"
A. "So, what has that to do with it?"
B. "Only that you could not have done something before you were alive. That's all".

Only in philosophy!

[RexT]

Thanks for the question.

It is my position that there is a world independent of consciousness of it, and of course that is beyond proof. But what the world is, independent of consciousness of it, is beyond knowing. It is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose. It just is what it is.

Hope that clarifies.
Yes, thank you.

I was not looking for any proof, just wanted to be clear about your intended meaning. What you posit is at least similar to how I too conceive of reality, simply because it makes more sense to me, not because I can prove it.

Then, one wonders how such an indeterminate world could give rise to consciousness, for consciousness seems so completely juxtaposed to reality, yes. Yet, the relationship between them seems so beautiful and perfect; as though reality were this endless medium of potential and consciousness moving effortlessly through it giving it a design, a form, a meaning, and a purpose wherever it wills. One might even imagine that consciousness did not arise from the medium or the medium from consciousness, but both arising together from something else altogether or perhaps existing eternally, not arising form anything. Have you considered these possibilities and if so, have you any objections?

Thanks again

Rex

[kennethamy]

Yes, thank you.

I was not looking for any proof, just wanted to be clear about your intended meaning. What you posit is at least similar to how I too conceive of reality, simply because it makes more sense to me, not because I can prove it.


Rex

How about instead of being able to prove it, just having some reason, any reason for thinking it is true. Or would even that be to much to ask?

What does, "it makes more sense to me" mean other than, "I believe it"? It makes sense to the suicide-bomber that he is going to meet up with 72 virgins. So what?

[RexT]

How about instead of being able to prove it, just having some reason, any reason for thinking it is true. Or would even that be to much to ask?

What does, "it makes more sense to me" mean other than, "I believe it"? It makes sense to the suicide-bomber that he is going to meet up with 72 virgins. So what?
Ok, those are fair questions and no doubt deserve answers.

First, I did not say I believe it is true. For I could not offer any proof or even evidence, which I would do if I believed it was true.

Second, I did not say I not think it is true. Again, if I thought it was true, I would agrue for it.

Lastly, I said it makes more sense to me. I did not say more than what, but it seems a natural expectation to hear what it makes more sense than.

Well, it makes more sense than a reality that is determinate on its own. I suppose, if you think about reality as being determinate on its own, you would conclude that is has some discreteness somewhere. Yet, no discreteness has been located, but rather, what has been found is that, reality is governed under a principle of uncertainty. This says that what once seemed solid and sure, was given its solidity and sureness, not of itself, but by consciousness and consciousness has of late taken this away. What remains of the once noble matter of reality is now become a field of probabilities.

Rex

[kennethamy]

Ok, those are fair questions and no doubt deserve answers.

First, I did not say I believe it is true. For I could not offer any proof or even evidence, which I would do if I believed it was true.

Second, I did not say I not think it is true. Again, if I thought it was true, I would agrue for it.

Lastly, I said it makes more sense to me. I did not say more than what, but it seems a natural expectation to hear what it makes more sense than.

Well, it makes more sense than a reality that is determinate on its own. I suppose, if you think about reality as being determinate on its own, you would conclude that is has some discreteness somewhere. Yet, no discreteness has been located, but rather, what has been found is that, reality is governed under a principle of uncertainty. This says that what once seemed solid and sure, was given its solidity and sureness, not of itself, but by consciousness and consciousness has of late taken this away. What remains of the once noble matter of reality is now become a field of probabilities.

Rex

What does X makes more sense to me than does Y, mean? Is it just an expression of feeling? The online dictionary says:

"25. make sense, to be reasonable or comprehensible: His attitude doesn't make sense."

Are you saying that the view you expressed is "more reasonable or comprehensible"? If so, what are your reasons?

[Breath]

Sure you can. Your memory might have played tricks on you. But, anyway, what has that to do with "absolutes"? When someone says that death or birth are "absolutes" what has that to do with the inability to doubt?

No, you can't. You are confused between description and explanation. The imagination/memory/mentation (of) X, is the sum total description of what has happened. When that description then becomes an object for doubt, that doubting is the sum total description of what has happened. When there is explanation, that explanation has absolutely happened. etc etc.

Birth and death as absolutes are a different, but valid usage of the word. To the extent that each moment is the death of the previous one, and the death of each moment is the birth of a new one, all previous moments become absolute as having been, and will forever remain that way.

[RexT]

What does X makes more sense to me than does Y, mean? Is it just an expression of feeling? The online dictionary says:

"25. make sense, to be reasonable or comprehensible: His attitude doesn't make sense."

Are you saying that the view you expressed is "more reasonable or comprehensible"? If so, what are your reasons?
You asked for some reason, I gave some reason. Did you not like it or did you just not understand it?

Rex

[RexT]

What does X makes more sense to me than does Y, mean? Is it just an expression of feeling? The online dictionary says:

"25. make sense, to be reasonable or comprehensible: His attitude doesn't make sense."

Are you saying that the view you expressed is "more reasonable or comprehensible"? If so, what are your reasons?
You asked for some reason, I gave some reason. Did you not like it or did you just not understand it or what?

Rex

[Breath]

You mean that you don't know that there was a world before you were born, nor a world that existed before there were people? Look up how long people have been around, and then look up how long the world has been around.

You remain unaware of your ideal stance. I acknowledge that it is possible to have any number of beliefs about the qualities of unobserved states, but they are only beliefs. When I look up how long people have been around, that is something that I am doing now, it tells me what other people believe. It does not translate to beng in a world 5 million years ago, it does not translate into sights and sounds etc etc. You do not seem to realise the absurdity of positing unheard sound, unseen sights, unsmelt smells, unfelt feelings. You do not seem to realise that the real world is the sensible world, and that the ideal world which you inhabit is completely not sensible. (sensible means exactly what it looks like - not to be read as perjorative)


By the way, how did you find out that "the world is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose." Do you happen to recall where that information came from, or is that just a part of your credo?

To be conscious means to know. In the absence of consciousness there is no knowing. What qualities would you ascribe to any world you don't know?

[Breath]

You mean that you don't know that there was a world before you were born, nor a world that existed before there were people? Look up how long people have been around, and then look up how long the world has been around.

You remain unaware of your ideal stance. I acknowledge that it is possible to have any number of beliefs about the qualities of unobserved states, but they are only beliefs. When I look up how long people have been around, that is something that I am doing now, it tells me what other people believe. It does not translate to beng in a world 5 million years ago, it does not translate into sights and sounds etc etc. You do not seem to realise the absurdity of positing unheard sound, unseen sights, unsmelt smells, unfelt feelings. You do not seem to realise that the real world is the sensible world, and that the ideal world which you inhabit is completely not sensible. (sensible means exactly what it looks like - not to be read as perjorative)


By the way, how did you find out that "the world is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose." Do you happen to recall where that information came from, or is that just a part of your credo?

To be conscious means to know. In the absence of consciousness there is no knowing. What qualities would you ascribe to any world you don't know?

[RexT]

What does X makes more sense to me than does Y, mean? Is it just an expression of feeling? The online dictionary says:

"25. make sense, to be reasonable or comprehensible: His attitude doesn't make sense."

Are you saying that the view you expressed is "more reasonable or comprehensible"? If so, what are your reasons?
You asked for some reason, I gave some reason. Did you not like it or did you just not understand it or what?

Rex

[RexT]

<edit>

[Breath]

You mean that you don't know that there was a world before you were born, nor a world that existed before there were people? Look up how long people have been around, and then look up how long the world has been around.

You remain unaware of your ideal stance. I acknowledge that it is possible to have any number of beliefs about the qualities of unobserved states, but they are only beliefs. When I look up how long people have been around, that is something that I am doing now, it tells me what other people believe. It does not translate to beng in a world 5 million years ago, it does not translate into sights and sounds etc etc. You do not seem to realise the absurdity of positing unheard sound, unseen sights, unsmelt smells, unfelt feelings. You do not seem to realise that the real world is the sensible world, and that the ideal world which you inhabit is completely not sensible. (sensible means exactly what it looks like - not to be read as perjorative)


By the way, how did you find out that "the world is void, featureless, without quality, without relation, without necessity. without purpose." Do you happen to recall where that information came from, or is that just a part of your credo?

To be conscious means to know. In the absence of consciousness there is no knowing. What qualities would you ascribe to any world you don't know?

[kennethamy]

No, you can't. You are confused between description and explanation. The imagination/memory/mentation (of) X, is the sum total description of what has happened. When that description then becomes an object for doubt, that doubting is the sum total description of what has happened. When there is explanation, that explanation has absolutely happened. etc etc.

Birth and death as absolutes are a different, but valid usage of the word. To the extent that each moment is the death of the previous one, and the death of each moment is the birth of a new one, all previous moments become absolute as having been, and will forever remain that way.

If I imagine that I just met the Easter Bunny and had a long conversation with him, then the imagined meeting the Easter Bunny happened: but what did not happen is that I met the Easter Bunny. There is, you know, a difference between my imagining that I had a rendez-vous with the Easter Bunny, which may have occurred if I had enough to drink, and my actually meeting the Easter Bunny. I don't understand what else you said (but that's not unusual).

If each time you call something an absolute, you are going to use "absolute" in a different sense, then all you are doing is punning on the word "absolute". What is the point of that? So when you say that X is an "absolute" and that Y is an "absolute" you don't mean the same thing by absolute? What then is the significance of the question, are there any absolutes? You can just make up a meaning of the term "absolute" at the spur of the moment, and call anything you like an "absolute".

If you have not (yet) told me what the hell the term "absolute" means, then how can I understand what you are saying when you write, 'To the extent that each moment is the death of the previous one, and the death of each moment is the birth of a new one, all previous moments become absolute as having been, and will forever remain that way"? What does it mean for a moment to be (or to become) "absolute"?

Joe: "When I met you, that was an absolute moment".
Eleanor: "Oh Joe. You are so romantic! (whatever that means)."

P.S. Were we talking about the birth and death of people, or the birth and death of moments (whatever that means)? I thought it was the former you called "absolutes".

[kennethamy]

You asked for some reason, I gave some reason. Did you not like it or did you just not understand it or what?

Rex

"What you posit is at least similar to how I too conceive of reality, simply because it makes more sense to me, not because I can prove it."

That was your reason?:huh:

[RexT]

If each time you call something an absolute, you are going to use "absolute" in a different sense, then all you are doing is punning on the word "absolute". What is the point of that? So when you say that X is an "absolute" and that Y is an "absolute" you don't mean the same thing by absolute? What then is the significance of the question, are there any absolutes? You can just make up a meaning of the term "absolute" at the spur of the moment, and call anything you like an "absolute".
Where is your explanation of the word absolute? You keep asking others to define something yet you will not even attempt it, or was your concept of absolute zero supposed to be such an attempt? If it was, I think I have already refuted it.

Anyway, why must a word, any word have only one use or meaning? Does such disambiguation even exist? If so, then by all means, enlighten us.

Rex

[RexT]

"What you posit is at least similar to how I too conceive of reality, simply because it makes more sense to me, not because I can prove it."

That was your reason?:huh:
No, you must have missed my post #70.

Rex

[kennethamy]

No, you must have missed my post #70.

Rex

Don't make me guess, Rex. Reveal it to me. Reveal it to us all!

[RexT]

Don't make me guess, Rex. Reveal it to me. Reveal it to us all!
Reveal what?

Rex

[Breath]

How in the world can you remember you were Napoleon if you weren't Napoleon? You might, if demented, think you remember being Napoleon, but that is not remembering you were Napoleon. You can't remember what never was the case, or what never happened.

A. "I remember fighting in the battle of Waterloo"
B. "But you hadn't even been born then!"
A. "So, what has that to do with it?"
B. "Only that you could not have done something before you were alive. That's all".

Only in philosophy!

You have answered your own question. I remember visiting grandparents in nursing homes, where 90 year old's where calling out to their mothers to come and change their nappies.

I had to smile to then think of kennethamy coming up to these old dears and saying no, no, that's not logical, you are 90 years old, your mother is long dead, and you haven't actually pooed your nappies.

You don't seem to realise that you ARE your thoughts, and that you will be your thoughts. And that your evaluations of persons as being demented, psychotic, dumb, intelligent etc is the life that you are living. There is no necessity for thoughts to be rational, kennethamy, and when in the eyes of others you are loosing the plot, that may mean absolutely nothing to you. All you'll be wanting is your nappy changed.

[kennethamy]

You have answered your own question. I remember visiting grandparents in nursing homes, where 90 year old's where calling out to their mothers to come and change their nappies.

I had to smile to then think of kennethamy coming up to these old dears and saying no, no, that's not logical, you are 90 years old, your mother is long dead, and you haven't actually pooed your nappies.

You don't seem to realise that you ARE your thoughts, and that you will be your thoughts. And that your evaluations of persons as being demented, psychotic, dumb, intelligent etc is the life that you are living. There is no necessity for thoughts to be rational, kennethamy, and when in the eyes of others you are loosing the plot, that may mean absolutely nothing to you. All you'll be wanting is your nappy changed.

Don't know what all of the above has to do with it. The fact remains that you can't remember what never happened. That's a fact about the term "remember". I love old ladies and I love apple pie too, but that has nothing to do with it. People may think they remember what never happened: but they don't.

[Breath]

If I imagine that I just met the Easter Bunny and had a long conversation with him, then the imagined meeting the Easter Bunny happened: but what did not happen is that I met the Easter Bunny. There is, you know, a difference between my imagining that I had a rendez-vous with the Easter Bunny, which may have occurred if I had enough to drink, and my actually meeting the Easter Bunny. I don't understand what else you said (but that's not unusual).

I agree with you, about there being a difference. I know when I would say there was a difference and why, but I don't know when or why you would. Could I ask you to say how the difference comes about, or comes to be known?


If you have not (yet) told me what the hell the term "absolute" means, then how can I understand what you are saying when you write, 'To the extent that each moment is the death of the previous one, and the death of each moment is the birth of a new one, all previous moments become absolute as having been, and will forever remain that way"? What does it mean for a moment to be (or to become) "absolute"?

I clearly gave two uses for absolute, one being "non-relative", the other being non-reducible".



P.S. Were we talking about the birth and death of people, or the birth and death of moments (whatever that means)? I thought it was the former you called "absolutes".

I didn't introduce the idea of birth or death as absolute, someone else did. You asked my thoughts and I gave them.

[Breath]

Don't know what all of the above has to do with it. The fact remains that you can't remember what never happened. That's a fact about the term "remember". I love old ladies and I love apple pie too, but that has nothing to do with it. People may think they remember what never happened: but they don't.

What test do you use to establish whether some mentation is a memory or an imagination?

[kennethamy]

I agree with you, about there being a difference. I know when I would say there was a difference and why, but I don't know when or why you would. Could I ask you to say how the difference comes about, or comes to be known?



.

I would not know how to discuss with you the question of whether there is a difference between actually engaging in a discussion with the EB, and my imagining (under who knows what influence) that I was engaging in such a conversation. In the first case there is an EB. In the second case there is no EB. What else is there to say?

I don't know what you mean by "how the difference comes about", but how do I know is a very different question from the question, what is the difference. The difference is as I stated it: EB vs. no EB. How I know there is no EB there? Well, just to start off with (and I mean, start off with) I know that there are no large bunnies who deliver large baskets of colored eggs to little children, and who spout up from nowhere. What sort of question is that?

Only in philosophy!

[kennethamy]

What test do you use to establish whether some mentation is a memory or an imagination?

1. did the event occur?
2. If the event occurred, was the person who claims to remember it, there.

What on earth did you think would be the test?

[Breath]

1. did the event occur?
2. If the event occurred, was the person who claims to remember it, there.

What on earth did you think would be the test?

Say you "recall" some event in your early childhood. What makes you certain it is a memory and not an imagination?

[Breath]

I would not know how to discuss with you the question of whether there is a difference between actually engaging in a discussion with the EB, and my imagining (under who knows what influence) that I was engaging in such a conversation. In the first case there is an EB. In the second case there is no EB. What else is there to say?

I don't know what you mean by "how the difference comes about", but how do I know is a very different question from the question, what is the difference. The difference is as I stated it: EB vs. no EB. How I know there is no EB there? Well, just to start off with (and I mean, start off with) I know that there are no large bunnies who deliver large baskets of colored eggs to little children, and who spout up from nowhere. What sort of question is that?

Only in philosophy!

It was mainly a question to determine whether it is enough for you to base a worldview on unexamined "ofcourse"-type axioms.

For me, it would not be enough for a philosopher to say "ofcourse the EB isn't real". I would require a more rigorous examination of proceedings. It would seem to me that differences between imagination and reality would be quantifiable in some way.

[kennethamy]

It was mainly a question to determine whether it is enough for you to base a worldview on unexamined "ofcourse"-type axioms.

For me, it would not be enough for a philosopher to say "ofcourse the EB isn't real". I would require a more rigorous examination of proceedings. It would seem to me that differences between imagination and reality would be quantifiable in some way.

I really have no idea what you are getting at. How would that distinction be quantifiable. Degrees of reality? Plato had that notion going, but it is a very difficult one to make out. And, anyway, Plato's notion of what is real was entangled in a questionable metaphysic.

As I use the phrase "X is real" it means, X is not mind-dependent. As the poet, Peter Viereck said, "real is what remains when you stop believing it".

[Breath]

I really have no idea what you are getting at. How would that distinction be quantifiable. Degrees of reality? Plato had that notion going, but it is a very difficult one to make out. And, anyway, Plato's notion of what is real was entangled in a questionable metaphysic.

As I use the phrase "X is real" it means, X is not mind-dependent. As the poet, Peter Viereck said, "real is what remains when you stop believing it".

If you have no way of distinguishing between what is imagined and what is real, why should anyone listen to yur pronouncements on what is real?

Can you give me an example of an X, any X, that is not mind-dependent?

[kennethamy]

If you have no way of distinguishing between what is imagined and what is real, why should anyone listen to yur pronouncements on what is real?

Can you give me an example of an X, any X, that is not mind-dependent?

Sure, Mt. Everest is not mind-dependent. (And here is an argument, in case one is needed: 1. Mt. Everest existed before there were people with minds.
2. Whatever exists before people and minds exist, is independent of people and minds. Therefore, 2. Mt. Everest is independent of people and minds.)


What makes you say I have no way of distinguishing between the imagined and the real? I said that the difference between what is imagined and real is one issue; how to distinguish between what is imagined and real is a different issue.

In Shakespeare's play, Macbeth Macbeth imagines he sees a dagger floating above his head. He says, "Is this a dagger I see before me? Come, let me clutch thee!" But, of course, when he attempts to clutch the dagger, he comes up with empty air. There is no dagger. He imagined it. Macbeth's argument is:

1. If that's a real dagger, then I could clutch it.
2. I cannot clutch it.

Therefore, 3. It is not a real dagger.

Nothing much wrong I can see with that argument. Can you?

In general, we can determine whether an what we think exists is imaginary or real by using our senses, and determining whether what our senses "report" is coherent in itself, (real daggers cannot just be seen and not clutched), and whether what what our senses "report" is coherent with what our senses report about the context: for example, real daggers do not suddenly appear floating above our heads.

Which is not to say that we are not fallible creatures. There is always the possibility of error. So our determination of what is real as contrasted with what is imagined cannot be made with absolute!!!! certainty, which is to say, "without the possiblity of error".

[Breath]

In Shakespeare's play, Macbeth Macbeth imagines he sees a dagger floating above his head. He says, "Is this a dagger I see before me? Come, let me clutch thee!" But, of course, when he attempts to clutch the dagger, he comes up with empty air. There is no dagger. He imagined it. Macbeth's argument is:

1. If that's a real dagger, then I could clutch it.
2. I cannot clutch it.

Therefore, 3. It is not a real dagger.

Nothing much wrong I can see with that argument. Can you?

In general, we can determine whether an what we think exists is imaginary or real by using our senses, and determining whether what our senses "report" is coherent in itself, (real daggers cannot just be seen and not clutched), and whether what what our senses "report" is coherent with what our senses report about the context: for example, real daggers do not suddenly appear floating above our heads.

Which is not to say that we are not fallible creatures. There is always the possibility of error. So our determination of what is real as contrasted with what is imagined cannot be made with absolute!!!! certainty, which is to say, "without the possiblity of error".

Thank you. I agree with you. Which is why I disagree with your opening statement in some of it's detail.


Sure, Mt. Everest is not mind-dependent. (And here is an argument, in case one is needed: 1. Mt. Everest existed before there were people with minds.
2. Whatever exists before people and minds exist, is independent of people and minds. Therefore, 2. Mt. Everest is independent of people and minds.)


The Mt Everest to which you refer is, like the dagger, an ideal object. And therefore totally mind-dependent. Mt Everest is a name to designate a form. And I doubt that you would be suggesting that either name or form are not mind-dependent.

I would agree with you if you said that being/existence in general is not mind-dependent. But being in particular, as in the case of Mt Everest, is predicated on the world being divided into this and not-this. And negation is an act of mind. To say that Mt Everest was a discrete object in the absence of whatever it was that abstracted it as discrete object is not so much false, but meaningless, IMO.

[kennethamy]

Thank you. I agree with you. Which is why I disagree with your opening statement in some of it's detail.



The Mt Everest to which you refer is, like the dagger, an ideal object. And therefore totally mind-dependent. Mt Everest is a name to designate a form. And I doubt that you would be suggesting that either name or form are not mind-dependent.

I would agree with you if you said that being/existence in general is not mind-dependent. But being in particular, as in the case of Mt Everest, is predicated on the world being divided into this and not-this. And negation is an act of mind. To say that Mt Everest was a discrete object in the absence of whatever it was that abstracted it as discrete object is not so much false, but meaningless, IMO.


As usual, I am flummoxed by what you might mean, and this time, what you might mean by "an ideal object". But, although I have never tried to climb Everest, I understand that anyone who tries to do it would find it real enough. In any case, you might try to read Sir Edmund Hillary's account of his successful climb of Everest. One problem I have with you is your using a term like "ideal" without giving me a clue what you think it means. But, if it means something like "an idea" let me assure you that Mt. Everest is not an idea, although, doubtless, the idea of Mt. Everest is an idea (who could deny that?) However, you really ought to try to distinguish between the idea of X and X itself. It would be helpful when you try to think. As for the hallucination of the dagger that Macbeth (in the play) has, it is not an idea or real. Since it is in the play, it is a part of what goes on in the play. Had Macbeth been an historical person, his hallucination of the dagger would have been a mental event, and only in that broad sense of "mental event" would it have been "ideal". Of course dagger are not ideas. They are, needless to say, daggers, just as mountains are mountains. But, of course, I am groping in the dark since I really have no idea what you mean by "ideal" and you seem to be reluctant to let me know. Is it a secret?

Your last paragraph is just opaque. What on earth does "this" and "not-this" mean? The word "this' is a relative pronoun. So when I tell you that when I said one of the computers was not functioning, I might explain by pointing to one of the computers and saying "I meant this one" and not, pointing to the other, "not this one". That is how I would use the terms "this" and "not-this". But how do you? (I might remind you that "this" isn't a name. It is, as I pointed out, a relative pronoun.

By the way, "Kennspeak" is, I hope, ordinary language speak. I don't say odd things like "the world being divided into this and not-this". At least I hope not!

[Breath]

But, of course, I am groping in the dark since I really have no idea what you mean by "ideal" and you seem to be reluctant to let me know. Is it a secret?

An ideal object, like the dagger in Macbeth, is a mind-made object. It is not testable, it is not sensible. A real dagger is teastable, it is sensible.


Your last paragraph is just opaque. What on earth does "this" and "not-this" mean? The word "this' is a relative pronoun. So when I tell you that when I said one of the computers was not functioning, I might explain by pointing to one of the computers and saying "I meant this one" and not, pointing to the other, "not this one". That is how I would use the terms "this" and "not-this". But how do you? (I might remind you that "this" isn't a name. It is, as I pointed out, a relative pronoun.

By the way, "Kennspeak" is, I hope, ordinary language speak. I don't say odd things like "the world being divided into this and not-this". At least I hope not!

My program is to examine the underlying assumptions of Kennspeak and Breathspeak, not to revel in an unfounded certainty.

I have previously pointed out that an object is defined by what it is not. But you wouldn't have any of that. Tell me something. When you are looking at a black line on a white piece of paper, what makes it so? What needs to be in place for that to be possible? What makes the black line an object, this object?

[kennethamy]

An ideal object, like the dagger in Macbeth, is a mind-made object. It is not testable, it is not sensible. A real dagger is teastable, it is sensible.



My program is to examine the underlying assumptions of Kennspeak and Breathspeak, not to revel in an unfounded certainty.

I have previously pointed out that an object is defined by what it is not. But you wouldn't have any of that. Tell me something. When you are looking at a black line on a white piece of paper, what makes it so? What needs to be in place for that to be possible? What makes the black line an object, this object?

A better example for you would be a shadow which is just the absence of light. But, so what? Shadows, and, for all I know, black lines are "defined" by what they are not. How does it follow that everything else is like that? There is an old (Yiddish I think) saying: it goes, "for instance is not an argument". Of course, your view that because some things have a particular feature, everything else has that particular feature, is an especially egregious instance of the fallacy of hasty generalization. It as if you were to argue that because an elephant is "defined" (whatever that means) as an animal that carries a trunk, all animals are "defined" as animals that carry trunks.

But you paired Macbeth's hallucination with Mt. Everest and said both were ideal objects. Did you forget? Mt. Everest is not a man-made object, and it is "testable" whatever you might mean by that. So how is it an ideal object? Look, in Kennspeak, and, I bet in ordinary speak too, an hallucination is something that is mental. But Mt. Everest?? Even in Breathspeak it is hard to credit that, and I would believe almost anything about Breathspeak.

[daemonia]

Life is forever. YOUR forever.

I figure that you cannot have absolutes as they imply something spanning all frames of reference, unfortunately there is no universal frame of reference (that i know of) and hence no absolutes.

Not even absolute zero - since it is physically impossible to attain in our universe. Nice reference point to allude to but cannot actually get there...still useful though.

[Breath]

A better example for you would be a shadow which is just the absence of light. But, so what? Shadows, and, for all I know, black lines are "defined" by what they are not. How does it follow that everything else is like that? There is an old (Yiddish I think) saying: it goes, "for instance is not an argument". Of course, your view that because some things have a particular feature, everything else has that particular feature, is an especially egregious instance of the fallacy of hasty generalization. It as if you were to argue that because an elephant is "defined" (whatever that means) as an animal that carries a trunk, all animals are "defined" as animals that carry trunks.

You are very hasty to assume fallacies.

A common feature of all visual objects is that they are visual objects. You, of course, hold there to be visible objects that are not visible objects, objects to which the causal processes of their arising as visual objects does not apply. I would have thought that it is earlier a truism than a fallacy to say that the boundary of any object marks the difference between it and not-it.


But you paired Macbeth's hallucination with Mt. Everest and said both were ideal objects. Did you forget? Mt. Everest is not a man-made object, and it is "testable" whatever you might mean by that. So how is it an ideal object? Look, in Kennspeak, and, I bet in ordinary speak too, an hallucination is something that is mental. But Mt. Everest?? Even in Breathspeak it is hard to credit that, and I would believe almost anything about Breathspeak.

I paired the seen but untouchable dagger, with an imagined Mt Everest millions of years ago that was unsensed but you are somehow able to imagine as it was unsensed. The dagger turned out to be ideal, because, even though it was seen, it lacked any other sensible attributes. I don't doubt that you have some mental image of Mt Everest as it was before people existed. But the fact that you have the image must mean it is an image constructed from some sense data you have acquired somewhere. Therefore the image you have of Mt Everest bears no relationship to the unsensed Mt Everest of millions of years ago. It is a total mental fabrication.

[kennethamy]

You are very hasty to assume fallacies.

A common feature of all visual objects is that they are visual objects. You, of course, hold there to be visible objects that are not visible objects, objects to which the causal processes of their arising as visual objects does not apply. I would have thought that it is earlier a truism than a fallacy to say that the boundary of any object marks the difference between it and not-it.



I paired the seen but untouchable dagger, with an imagined Mt Everest millions of years ago that was unsensed but you are somehow able to imagine as it was unsensed. .

Me, and most geologists. What is so odd about that? Imagining something as not being perceived is not perceiving it as being unperceived if that is what you are confusing it with. (Maybe that's why you impute to me that I believe there are "visible objects that are not visible objects"? All I believe is that there are visible objects ("visible" = "can be seen") which are not seen. Objects that are not seen can be visible objects. It is only objects that cannot be seen that are not visible objects (of course). You do, I hope, distinguish between "can be seen", and "are seen".

[Bob K]

... I figure that you cannot have absolutes as they imply something spanning all frames of reference, unfortunately there is no universal frame of reference (that i know of) and hence no absolutes.

Not even absolute zero - since it is physically impossible to attain in our universe. Nice reference point to allude to but cannot actually get there...still useful though.

When time is operationally defined as follows ...Time is the use by humans and machines of cyclic durations such as the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, the day<->night cycle of the Earth's rotation about its axis, or the oscillations of caesium-atom clocks (which produce the time-interval of one second), which are called time-intervals and which are units of measurement for the purpose of measuring (1) the number of time-intervals between the occurrences of events or (2) the number of time-intervals in the duration of a single event for the purposes of (A) determining when, at what timepoints on a timeline/timemap (historical record), events occurred in the past, are occurring now, or will occur in the future, (B) if or not the events were simultaneous--if or not events occurred at the same timepoint, (C) for coordinating, synchronizing and scheduling events, (D) for predicting future events, and for (E) determining the causality or the coincidence between or among people, objects and/or events.

... then the essence of time is the time-interval/TI, because it generates a clock's rate of ticking/RoT and the clock's timepoints on a timeline/timemap/history, ...

... and if that TI varies inversely with accelerations/decelerations then that TI will measure local time/LT, and the time-interval is a local time-interval/LTI, and a clock ticking with an LTI measuring LT is a local time clock/LTC, and the LTI in the LTC can measure simultaneity--the occurrence of two or more events at the same timepoint--within an inertial reference frame/IRF but not simultaneity in other IRFs, because similarly constructed LTCs in other IRFs will tick with a different RoT which will generate different timepoints on a different timeline/timemap/history ...

... but if that TI is adjusted to compensate for the known effects of accelerations/decelerations then that LTI does not vary inversely with accelerations/decelerations and it will measure absolute time/AT, or universal time/UT, and the TI then becomes an absolute time-interval/ATI, or universal time-interval/UTI, and a clock ticking with an ATI/UTI is an absolute time clock/ATC or universal time clock/UTC, and the ATI in an ATC/UTC can measure simultaneity within a single IRF or simultaneity in different IRFs in which similarly constructed ATCs/UTCs are found. because similarly constructed ATCs/UTCs will tick with the same RoT which will generate the same timepoints on the same timeline/timemap/history, all of which will be the same in all IRFs in which similarly constructed ATCs/UTCs are found.

We thus note that there is at least one absolute in physics--AT/UT.

And this absolute--AT/UT--is found in the US GPS nav timing system because Earthbound master clocks control the TIs and RoTs and timepoints/timelines of slave clocks in the GPS satellites, thereby creating a master clock<->slave clock relationship in which the RoT of the master clock is identical to the RoTs of the slave clocks, and the RoTs of the slave clocks are all identical to each other, and thus simultaneity and the predictability and coordination of events can be achieved within the GPS timing system.

We can use the fact that all atoms oscillate with known frequencies--each atom has a known rate of oscillation/RoO, or rate of operation/RoO--relative to the Earth's IRF and the fact that atoms' RoOs vary inversely with accelerations/decelerations to determine if or not absolute velocity/AV = 0 mps at absolute rest/AR in the absolute rest inertial reference frame can be achieved and is therefore a reality.

An atom's RoO can be used to generate the RoT/timepoints/timeline of a clock--the Caesium-atom clock uses the RoO of a caesium atom to generate a RoT/timepoints/timeline

We can send an LTC into space and accelerate/decelerate it in known directions and track its RoT--actually, the changes of the LTC's RoT.

Note that the observers herein would be limited to Earthbound observers moving in uniform motion--uniformly moving observers/UMOs; we would not care what would be observations of a moving observer/MO within the LTC's rocket's IRF.

Acceleration will cause the LTC's RoT to decrease while deceleration will cause the LTC's RoT to increase.

By a series of short firebursts of the LTC's rocket thruster or retro motors in known direction and the observation of the LTCs' RoT after each fireburst we can determine if or not the LTC is decelerating to AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF.

AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF will occur when the LTC's RoT is at its maximum, whatever that maximum RoT number might be.

If a series of firebursts should produce increases in the LTC's RoT, then we know we are firing the thrusters or retros in the right direction for the deceleration necessary for achieving AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF.

At a point in space the firings of the LTC's rocket's thrusters or retros will produce a max RoT and the LTC will therefore be at AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF, and additional firings of the thrusters or retros will produce decreases in the LTC's RoT and we will therefore know the LTC is accelerating and it's AV > 0 mps and it is no longer at AR in the ARIRF; and to get the LTC back to AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF we know we can fire the rocket's thruster or retros to produce a reversal of rocket's LTC's motion/direction and an increase in the LTC's RoT until it achieves its max at AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF.

We can note the LTC's max RoT at AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF and know that the LTC's minimum RoT would have to occur at AV close to c/SOL/186,000 mps--the speed of light in vacuo, and we could thereby declare the establishment of a absolute velocity/cosmic/universal speedometer with a speed range of AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF to AV = c/SOL/186,000 mps, and because there would be a correspondence of the LTC's RoT with each AV speedpoint [AV = 0 mps would be AV speedpoint 0, AV = c/SOL = AV speedpoint 186,00 mps] the LTC's RoT could be used to determine the LTC's AV and the AV of any object in the LTC's IRF (whenever the LTC were to enter the object's IRF).

This same experiment can be conducted using ATC's and observers aboard the ATC's rocket.

In this case, the ATC--being either (A) a slave clock controlled by an Earthbound master clock which is controlled by Earthbound observers, who are UMOs relative to the ATC's rocket or (B) an inertial clock which has accelerometers/decelerometers which detect changes of motion and computer which adjust the ATC's ATI/RoT/timepoints/timeline to compensate for detected changes of motion caused by accelerations/decelerations--would not change it's RoT with accelerations/decelerations, and, thus, would tick at the same RoT with the same timepoints/timeline regardless of it's AV, but the moving observer/MO would undergo changes in his/her RoO and rate of perception/RoP caused by accelerations/decelerations, and his/her perception of the ATC's RoT would present the subjective impression that the ATC's RoT is increasing directly (not inversely) with accelerations and decreasing directly with decelerations, and, thus, by his/her observation of the ATC's RoT the MO could determine when his rocket's firebursts produced the ATC's minimum RoT as AV = 0 mps at AR in the ARIRF.

Note that if an inertial clock, an inertial type ATC, were to be used, that the MO aboard the rocket in which the ATC were present would not care what other objects might exist within the universe, because the functioning of the ATC would not be relative to any other object in the universe, and, therefore, the MO could just as well be in a rocket which had not windows and therefore no means by which the MO could be aware of the existence of, and relative position and motion of, any other object in the universe. This, of course, is the case in which MOs theoretically could not determine if or not they are in motion if they could not observe another object in the universe, but, now, by the conditions described inre the ATC to be an inertial type ATC, the MOs could determine if or not they are not moving when they would observe the ATC's RoT to be its minimum and if or not they are moving at AV > 0 mps when the ATC's RoT is greater than its minimum.

We also have the absolute that is space, if space is operationally defined to be the volume of infinite radius--the infinite i-volume which is the space of the universe--wherein exist time and physics (matter/energy, m/e), because all smaller, finite volumes of f radius--f-volumes--would have to fit within the infinite i-volume. Space as the infinite i-volume is therefore an absolute because no more space could be added to it (where would the additional space come from?), and no space could be removed from it (where would the removed space go?).

Time, as shown, is either absolute when measured by ATIs in ATCs, or local when measured by LTIs in LTCs.

Physics (m/e) is absolute when we consider that the universal m/e is a closed m/e system because no m/e can be added to it (where would the additional m/e come from?), no m/e can be removed from it (where would the removed m/e go?), the sum total of the universal m/e is a constant (finite or infinite) because m/e of any kind is indestructible as proven by the laws of the conservation of energy and the conservation of matter as proven by experiments by the chemist LaVoisier and the physicist/thermodynamicist Carnot and embodied in Einstein's e = mc2 and m = e/c2.

We thus have absolutes which produce the space/time/physics combo which is the universe, and we note that space is infinite in volume and existence in time, time is infinite in duration in space, and physics (m/e) is infinite in duration within space and time (because m/e is indestructible), and, therefore, the universe is infinite in extension in space, infinite in duration in time, and infinite inre the duration of its physics (m/e).

[Breath]

Me, and most geologists. What is so odd about that? Imagining something as not being perceived is not perceiving it as being unperceived if that is what you are confusing it with. (Maybe that's why you impute to me that I believe there are "visible objects that are not visible objects"? All I believe is that there are visible objects ("visible" = "can be seen") which are not seen. Objects that are not seen can be visible objects. It is only objects that cannot be seen that are not visible objects (of course). You do, I hope, distinguish between "can be seen", and "are seen".

It is useful to have this discussion, because it pinpoints where we differ.

For me, any sensible object is produced by selecting it from the totality of what that sense modality is presenting. A sensible object is not there as a given, having it's own identity, waiting to become the object of focus, but a sensible object is made to be what it is by the act of differentiating / abstracting it from its ground. The characteristics of the object inhere in its relationship to me.

For you, on the other hand, an object is what it is in-itself, it is the bearer of it's own characteristic.

If you agree with that description of how we differ, I am happy to leave it at that,

[kennethamy]

It is useful to have this discussion, because it pinpoints where we differ.

For me, any sensible object is produced by selecting it from the totality of what that sense modality is presenting. A sensible object is not there as a given, having it's own identity, waiting to become the object of focus, but a sensible object is made to be what it is by the act of differentiating / abstracting it from its ground. The characteristics of the object inhere in its relationship to me.

For you, on the other hand, an object is what it is in-itself, it is the bearer of it's own characteristic.

If you agree with that description of how we differ, I am happy to leave it at that,

That would be nice. Only I don't understand what you are talking about. No object, however "sensible" depends on its selection from anything, although our concept of the object does. Again, I refer you to the geological, and, in general, scientific, fact, that Mt. Everest existed before people existed, and since no concepts existed before people existed, Mt. Everest existed before concepts existed. Therefore, since selection depends on concepts, no selection of Mt. Everest took place before there were people, but Mt. Everest was there before people.

1. geologists have determined the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567x109 years).
2. Q: How old is man? (Sidney, Port Harcourt, Nigeria)

A reconstruction of an early man (Austrolopithecus africanus)
Toni Wirts, National Park Service employee

A: Old. Maybe as old as 7 million years. How old depends on what we call "man."

The skull of a hominid who lived 7 million years ago looks partly like a chimpanzee's skull and partly like a human's skull.

Four and a half billion years ago is longer than 7 million years ago. Therefore, the Earth is older than man. Therefore, object on Earth are older than man. Therefore, Mt. Everest is older than man. Therefore, Mt. Everest is older than any concept is. Therefore, Mt. Everest is older than any concept of Mt. Everest is. But Mt. Everest can be "selected from the whole" only if there is a concept of Mt. Everest. Therefore, Mt. Everest existed before the "selection from the whole" of Mt. Everest. Therefore, the existence of Mt. Everest is independent of its "selection from the whole".

[Breath]

Therefore, the existence of Mt. Everest is independent of its "selection from the whole".

You fail to understand that whatever was there prior to it becoming Mt Everest to a person cannot be referred to as Mt Everest. It was not a discrete object. It was part of an undifferentiated continuum that had no other characteristic than that it was. For it to become Mt Everest, it had to be abstracted out of the Himalayas, from which it is ontologically inseparable. And the Himalayas had to be abstracted out of its background etc etc. To be an object is to be an object to/of consciousness. The claims of science in this respect mirror your own idealism.

[kennethamy]

You fail to understand that whatever was there prior to it becoming Mt Everest to a person cannot be referred to as Mt Everest. It was not a discrete object. It was part of an undifferentiated continuum that had no other characteristic than that it was. For it to become Mt Everest, it had to be abstracted out of the Himalayas, from which it is ontologically inseparable. And the Himalayas had to be abstracted out of its background etc etc. To be an object is to be an object to/of consciousness. The claims of science in this respect mirror your own idealism.

You are the Idealist, since apparently, you think that unless something is "conceptualized" (whatever that really means) it does not exist. Why you believe that would be an interesting story, for you would have to explain why you think that nothing exists unless it is conceptualized. Why do you think that all "objects" have to be something that someone is conscious of, is the issue. You cannot simply assert it. You have to argue for it. But the view that nothing can exist unless someone is conscious of it, is the very essence of Idealism. The greatest Idealist, George Berkeley argued for this notion at length (and breadth, too). He constructed some very ingenious, and very bad arguments for it too. In fact, one of his arguments, maybe his master argument was one that you keep trolling up in various guises, viz. that it is impossible for something to exist unthought of, because when you try to imagine such a thing, why, lo!, you are thinking of it! That argument won a contest (really) and a prize, for being the worst argument in the world.

See:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:87-Ua6l_cPAJ:www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000754.html+the+worst+argument+in+the+world&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8

However, you may not know this story about Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist:

Apparently he read Bishop Berkeley, and was so persuaded by his Idealism, that he began first to turn his back on objects, and then, after a pause (to fool them) he turned his head very very fast to catch them as they disappeared. Catch them in the act, as it were. (But he never recorded that he succeeded).

Thus, there is a lesson for us all. Don't let philosophy drive you nuts.

[Breath]

Yo