|
|
#21 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
I think the fundamental problem here is that you think the universe is something through which observers move and go on about their lives, and I think that the universe is something which moves about the observers, in other words, when your eyes are shut, you can believe the universe still exists, but you really can't prove it until you open them again.
Furthermore, I can't agree more when you said "...it is most likely untrue." Of course, but the fact that it is most likely not true doesn't mean that it couldn't be true. In other words, its possible, but not probable, and certainly not logical. (and as for your complaint about the sentient creator, consider the widely accepted Big Bang theory. Who or what started the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking himself admits that the theory seems to be more a proof of God's existence than a denial. But that is for a different argument.) "That means observers do not matter and can not matter to the validity of an absolute truth." I don't think that could be more wrong. If you look at an electron, you change it. The electron's existence, which is a kind of absolute truth, is thus changed by observation. You don't know if the cat is alive or dead, and can't say either way because you aren't looking at it. Logically, it seems that Schroedinger's cat must be either alive or dead, but it is either neither or both until you look at it to determine this. There is no absolute truth without the observer.] To get back to what I was originally saying, we will never resolve this if we are thinking of the universe in different ways. If you actually think that the universe still exists when you aren't observing it, and by think I mean that you think you can prove this, then we will never be arguing on the same terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Quantum physics is a very messy department and I think you shouldn't use that area as an example- we don't know enough about it yet.
You are right that we should drop this, but I need to make another comment. I can prove that when my eyes are closed the universe still exists. When my eyes are closed I can still feel it, it is still affecting me, I can smell it, I can taste it, it exsits. Supposing you remove all of my senses, it is still an absolute truth that the universe exists- you are observering it, correct? That means the truth has been identified. I think that is a very important thing to remember- the absolute truth is always there, but it requires an observer to identify it. That's what happens in quantum physics for the most part- certain things cannot have an identified absolute truth, or when the absolute truth is not identified it is unknown to the particle (so it can be both). |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
As my parting comment, I would respond and say that if you can't sense the universe, you aren't observing it, and therefore you can't prove whether or not it exists. As for quantum physics being a messy department, well, I'm not sure about that. All I know is that it boggles my mind.
Anyway, good debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
|
... + ... = ... ... isn't the best example...
say ... represents 2. 2 + 2 != 22. the best example is ... = ..., because no matter what, that's always true. 5 = 5 pig = pig etc. = etc.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
|
rofl moogy.
okay let's take this example: if, when the two rocks are put next to eachother, they create another rock by some sort of mineral reproduction because of a special element these particular rocks have. if you take these two rocks and put two more rocks, you'll have six rocks. maybe even more, depending on the length of their ability to reproduce. in this case, 2+2 would not = 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Neo, that isn't addition. It would be 2 + 2 + X = 4 + X. Man, now you've made this topic boring! I'm outta here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
|
no, no.
there's still two rocks + two rocks. you add them, and you get more than four rocks. that alone defies the "absolute truth", and it takes just one example to disprove something is absolute. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Heh, Drac's posts sound like they were written by the Fatmouse guy ( http://www.fatmouse.tk ).
On topic, though, I think the only ABSOLUTE truths come in the form of math. Everything empirical is subject to question, and therefore can't be proven. Sure, you sense the universe around you, but how do you know you're not hallucinating it? You could then go into the "I think, therefore I am" argument and try to prove your existence, but I don't know for sure if you exist, so that doesn't affect me. I think absolute truths are hard to come by. BTW, I didn't read the first page, so if I just repeated something, blame my laziness. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Neodark, stop trying to be an idiot. It isn't defying anything. 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. 4 rocks + 1 more rock (produced in reaction) = 5 rocks. It isn't that hard.
Guido: that fatmouse guys is HILARIOUS! Thanks for the link :P |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
|
you obviously didnt read anything but guido's link.
if you can't prove you exist, there's no absolute truth. i can't prove i exist to you, and vice versa. it's all just trust and senses. and i'm not being an idiot. you take two of the same type of weirdass reproducing rock and you get 3. 1+1=3. unless the new rock reproduced with the two others and so on and blah and blah... |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 18
|
really, any definition is just consisted of an opinion that seems to work, and that some/most people agree on
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Neo, you are being stupid. The reaction is *adding* another rock. It is really really simple. 1 + 1 = 2, then the reaction of those two adds another (2 + 1 = 3). It is very simple!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5
|
Back to the topic of absolute truth, instead of foolish addition problems with replicating rocks.
It is an absolute truth that there is a statement that can neither be shown to be or not be an absolute truth. If you don't believe me, read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Player
|
No statement can be an absolute truth in itself. Statements are just to share ideas, not absolute truths.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|