Thread: Back to Basics - Absolute Truth

Originally Posted by Lesser Known

Skepticism all the way.

Just read your previous post and I agree. In science, there cannot be absolute truths because then science and the scientific method would not work. Now, one could say that I'm contradicting myself by saying "there cannot be absolute truths", but that would be ignoring the fact that I specifically mentioned "in science". There certainly are absolute truths.

But to argue that life solely works off of one or the other is a bit misguided, I think. Some facts remain facts no matter what. However, other facts may not hold true under certain circumstances. In other words, some facts (or truths) are completely relative to the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lesser Known

And the subject matter; you know, what's in the post, isn't so much about that as it is a denial of relativism. My entirety of posts have been about denial of relativism. I guess ignoring 90% of my post and pointing at the title and saying "Yeah, by the way, THIS is what we're talking about" may SEEM like a good strategy when you're losing, but it's not actually, mainly because of it's transparency.

But go ahead, I await your next post that once again relates a scientific principle to the acceptance that science is impossible. :rolleyes:

Of course I was ignoring 90% of your posts as they were about relativism while mine are about relativity. What you did post relating to relativity was a claim that it was wrong. (post #28).

Mentioning that QP adds to NP over and over again is irrelevant as it's relativity that made the premises of absolute time and space obsolete and not SP. What QP added is the notion of probability which denies any absolutes for science.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

In a solar system, planets orbit around the center mass, most likely a star or binary star, etc. Once again, a universal absolute truth. Planets in a solar system will orbit the center mass here as well as billions of light years away.

None of those are absolute. They're not even correct. The orbits are not around the center mass but about the gravitational center of the whole system. That center is not fixed as the content and position of its components changes continuously and as a consequence the actual orbits are chaotic (technical term) and therefore unpredictable exactly. (Which does not contradict that they are perfectly and easily predictable in a cruder and approximative sense.)
But there's nothing absolute about them.

Originally Posted by WoI

Of course I was ignoring 90% of your posts as they were about relativism while mine are about relativity. What you did post relating to relativity was a claim that it was wrong. (post #28).

Mentioning that QP adds to NP over and over again is irrelevant as it's relativity that made the premises of absolute time and space obsolete and not SP. What QP added is the notion of probability which denies any absolutes for science.

Actually I said it denounced to a large degree Newtonian Physics.

Regardless, if the argument was REALLY about the theory of relativity then it's not one I'm going to make as I find the theory of relativity an amazing breakthrough in science.

Originally Posted by WoI

None of those are absolute. They're not even correct. The orbits are not around the center mass but about the gravitational center of the whole system.

You're correct, my mistake, though in my defense the gravitational center of a solar system tends to be the most massive object in the solar system.

That center is not fixed as the content and position of its components changes continuously and as a consequence the actual orbits are chaotic (technical term) and therefore unpredictable exactly. (Which does not contradict that they are perfectly and easily predictable in a cruder and approximative sense.)

Sure, I'm not arguing that changes in orbit don't occur or that the orbits themselves are predictable (the various pulling of gravity between planets passing each other can very well throw the whole solar system to crap after enough time). I'm arguing that the same mechanics that govern the behavior of a solar system here are also true everywhere else in the universe. What is 'true' for our solar system will be 'true' for solar systems throughout the universe.

Perhaps not the best example, I'll admit. I'm just happy you're not trying to argue that I don't have four fingers and a thumb on my right hand.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

However, the idea that relativism defies reality, as posited by the OP is also false, because facts can and do vary depending on circumstance.

You must have missed this:

Originally Posted by Eagle88

One of the other interesting things about relativism is that it defies reality. If “my truth” is that by flapping my arms and running in circles I will succeed in flying will the laws of physics somehow repeal themselves to allow me to fly? No. There are absolute rules of science that govern such cases. It is no coincidence that if I take the exact same ingredients, mix them in the exact same quantities, under the exact same conditions then it will produce the same result. If truth were truly relative then wouldn’t the results of my previous actions reflect that relativity by giving me random results?

Of course different circumstances produce different results but that in no way contradicts anything I said. Different laws of science apply differently in different circumstances but it doesn't mean that those laws don't exist. Keep circumstances and experiments the same and the same results apply. That is not relativity. That's absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

One of the fundamental parts of science is that it avoids absolutes. Nowhere, ever, in the history of our scientific endeavors, has anyone said "Well, we solved that, let's never question it again."

And yes, the results of the experiment are the same. The results consistently show that reality, truth, facts, what have you, can very well change depending on circumstance. One thing can simultaneously be two different things.

No, it shows that there are laws involved that we don't know about yet. If things truly were relative then why are results consistent? I don't know how you claim that things are relative while believing that results will be consistent when the experiments and the conditions of them are the same. As another poster wisely put it, science relies on absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

You're correct, my mistake, though in my defense the gravitational center of a solar system tends to be the most massive object in the solar system.

Now I'm going to be pedantic. The gravitational center of a system is just a point. One that generally lies within the most massive object in the system, that being its sun, yes. But there are many systems with more than one sun and in all those cases that point is nowhere near any of the suns unless they're hugely discrepant in mass (which most likely would prevent the smaller one being a star actually).

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm arguing that the same mechanics that govern the behavior of a solar system here are also true everywhere else in the universe. What is 'true' for our solar system will be 'true' for solar systems throughout the universe.

In science that's not a truth. It's a postulate. It's an assumption that is made until further notice. That notice being a situation in which the postulate is no longer tenable. Which is for example exactly what happened with the postulate of absolute time and space when Einstein showed that a relativistic postulate (which is also not a truth) agreed far better with observation.
Just call me Mr. Pedantic.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Perhaps not the best example, I'll admit. I'm just happy you're not trying to argue that I don't have four fingers and a thumb on my right hand.

Actually....that's just a matter of definition as to what consitutes a 'finger' and a 'thumb'. Neither is it an absolute (i.e. universal) truth. If you'd drunkenly visit a saw mill it could become a falsehood.

Originally Posted by WoI

Now I'm going to be pedantic. The gravitational center of a system is just a point. One that generally lies within the most massive object in the system, that being its sun, yes. But there are many systems with more than one sun and in all those cases that point is nowhere near any of the suns unless they're hugely discrepant in mass (which most likely would prevent the smaller one being a star actually).

Right, we're talking about the same thing, I was just not using the correct terminology in my example. Note that I did even mention binary star systems in my original example.

In science that's not a truth. It's a postulate. It's an assumption that is made until further notice. That notice being a situation in which the postulate is no longer tenable. Which is for example exactly what happened with the postulate of absolute time and space when Einstein showed that a relativistic postulate (which is also not a truth) agreed far better with observation.
Just call me Mr. Pedantic.

Yea, really, Mr. Pedantic. Though, that's not really true, since accuracy in terminology is very important when discussing science. I'll retract the example.

On a side note, I find it a bit funny that I was able to hastily describe the double slit experiment from memory, but run into all sorts of shit when I hastily bring up some as 'basic' as planetary systems.

Actually....that's just a matter of definition as to what consitutes a 'finger' and a 'thumb'. Neither is it an absolute (i.e. universal) truth. If you'd drunkenly visit a saw mill it could become a falsehood.

There's not really any disagreement over what constitutes a human finger and a human thumb, at least not any that I've heard. The fact that I have one of what is known as a human thumb and four of what is known as a human finger on my hand is pretty hard to deny, though. And, there's no doubt that truths can become falsehoods.

EDIT: though, I guess if one wanted to further refute my "fingers on hand" idea, they could just point out that nothing is really on/touching anything.

Thomas Aquinas defended the Commandment not to "bear false witness" by saying that lying is an abuse of God's gift of speech. Mark Twain may have provided a better reason not to lie in stating "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Some human ethics, including the inclination to tell the truth, may be hard-wired into the human brain before birth, as a bird's hard-wired ablility to build a nest which it has never seen done.Another example is that in a normally functioning wolf pack where two wolves are vying for leadershp, and one gives up the fight and rolls on its back like a puppy, the other ceases to attack. It seems very doubtful that this is a conscious process, but is simply hard-wired wolf behavior that has survival value to that pack and to the species. Adult humans not only find human infants cute, but also wolf pups, fawns, colts, baby chicks, baby elephants, and so on, apparently because of disproportionately large head sizes of infants, the protection of which is important to human survival, but the hard-wiring spills over into other animals, at least in theory. Other hard-wiring is that the sight of human blood often makes us queasy unless we become used to it, as with doctors and nurses, but we don't ordinarily become queasy at the sight of animal blood.

Humans may also have hard-wired ethics against lying lying; providing disinformation probably has negative survival value to human clans and thus humans at large, and polygraph tests, which measure blood pressure and other indicators, show that lying is stressful to normal humans. I add "normal" because in cases where humans or animals have been severely abused, or where they have been born with missing brain lobes or other brain abnormalities, all bets about their behavior are off.

The bottom line is that most people feel uncomfortable telling lies, and don't like to be lied to. Lying is almost always destrucitve and counterproductive, and what really pisses me off personally is when politicians and government personnel whose salary we pay look us straight in the eye and lie to us, as with Colonel Oliver North and Elliot Abrams during Iran-Contra when they went on the Mac Neil-Lehrer Show and the Sunday morning talk shows, looked the American people in the face, and flat-out lied. North was convicted of lying to Congress and sentenced to prison, but was pardoned by President and former CIA Director George Bush The First. Conservatives still love Oliver North, and seem to believe that the situational ethics of the ends justifying the means are fine when it comes to the military and State Dept lying, but don't like it when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner lie.

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

The bottom line is that most people feel uncomfortable telling lies, and don't like to be lied to.

But here you are mistaking not telling lies with telling the truth. It's perfectly possible to not lie and there still being no truth in what you say.

Originally Posted by Helene

But here you are mistaking not telling lies with telling the truth. It's perfectly possible to not lie and there still being no truth in what you say.

I can remember Nelson Rockefeller as Governor of New York saying to reporters "I'm glad you asked that question" and then provide an "answer" to something entirely different. Then, if the question was asked again, he would say "I've already addressed that issue." Is that what you're talking about? Evasion? Can you give an example?

Originally Posted by WoI

None of those are absolute. They're not even correct. The orbits are not around the center mass but about the gravitational center of the whole system. That center is not fixed as the content and position of its components changes continuously and as a consequence the actual orbits are chaotic (technical term) and therefore unpredictable exactly. (Which does not contradict that they are perfectly and easily predictable in a cruder and approximative sense.)
But there's nothing absolute about them.

Nonsense. The trajectory being sensitive to initial conditions doesn't mean the equations of motion aren't absolute.

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

I can remember Nelson Rockefeller as Governor of New York saying to reporters "I'm glad you asked that question" and then provide an "answer" to something entirely different. Then, if the question was asked again, he would say "I've already addressed that issue." Is that what you're talking about? Evasion? Can you give an example?

That sounds like every recent presidential debate.