Since: Jan 13
#84 Jan 20, 2013
My last post posed fair questions and observations, and you seem to be making a shaky attempt at getting me to respond to it for you...?
Post #80. http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TFMEMNU...
By responding to Post 80, I think you'll satisfy - at least in part, if not whole - your own request for clarity.
#85 Jan 21, 2013
'evidence','knowledge','truth' ,'proof'... are ALL subjective. They require observer-dependent verification. This is why objective (observer-INDEPENDENT) definitions are necessary for rational analysis.
But you are confusing object-hood and existence, this is why I was attempting to clarify... It was for your sake, not mine.
Object: that which has shape
Existence: object with location
Shape: spacial separation
Location: static distance to another object/objects
In order to avoid your admitted 'problems with subjectivity' and embrace rational analysis, the definition of object needs to be objective.
Let us suppose, all the objects in the universe disappeared save one single object surrounded by nothing-ness. The only objective quality distinguishing this object from space would be shape, or spacial separation. The boundaries of the object would separate it from blending into nothing-ness.
No other quality or property could be claimed innate and intrinsic to the object, without invoking subjective description. Composition, size, mass and color can only be realized by observation. Keep in mind, the precise shape of the object could only be determined by observation, but that it has shape-ness, distinguishes it from nothing-ness.
So shape is the only objective property innate and intrinsic to objects; they are standalone and distinct.
Can objects, with shape, not exist... Of course! The hanging gardens of Babylon, Aristotle, unicorns, Bilbo Baggins and the 2020 BMW M6 are all objects, but they do not exist, because they do not have location. Not all objects exist, but only objects can exist.
I will get into CONCEPTS next post...
#86 Jan 21, 2013
Not sure how the above remarks are "incendiary"...
#88 Jan 21, 2013
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement is false.
Since: Jan 13
#89 Jan 21, 2013
How do Bilbo Baggins and a 2020 beamer - among whatever else - have spacial separation? Are they not concepts? I'll wait for that post when you get to it...as well as your responses for Post 80.
As far as philosophy goes, the one you recommended sounds very much like a sort of zen buddhism; separate from the topic of this thread (which I wish it wasn't), it makes me wonder how can Alkuajatus claim to "open" minds as opposed to closing them like the others?
#90 Jan 24, 2013
Sorry for the long delay, but life got in the way of intellectual inquiry...
From your last post, it seems you are still stuck on the notion of 'knowledge' and 'subjectivity'. If you are thinking my analysis will include subjectivity as a necessary component, you will be disappointed. But before I go on with my outlined synopsis, it appears I must address your concerns from post #80...
You asked what I meant by "measure"; simple, an object exists if it has shape (spatial separation) and location. The "measure", determinant, or what ever synonym you like, are the conditions of shape and location. There is no pleading to 'knowledge', or perception or proof... These all require a subject, namely, human, to resolve to. That's what makes these definitions OBJECTIVE. They are observer-independent. The Moon was an object long before humans came along, and long after humans are gone.
Are "subjective interpretations" wrong? Of course not. Just ask any theist if their 'subjective interpretation' of the world is 'right'. Or ask the a-theist if their 'subjective interpretation' of the world is 'right'. They will both conclude, using 'proofs', that their "interpretation" is correct. But that's the problem with "subjective interpretation"... It is observer-DEPENDENT, necessarily requiring 'verification','evidence','kno wledge' and 'proof'. Only RATIONAL ANALYSIS and CRITICAL THINKING will provide OBJECTIVE explanations. The rest is moot...
"...That would bring us to debating if only objects can exist - and what an object is."
As I have outlined, we must FIRST define what an object is, then define what a CONCEPT is, determine which qualify for 'existence', then we can DEFINE 'existence'. I was attempting to do just this, but you want me to address your post, right now.
"...If it's something with dimension and location, would that not be subjective (what an object is)?"
No, I defined OBJECT as what which has shape. It has SHAPE as an OBJECTIVE, INNATE and INTRINSIC property. Consequently, shape-ness is the ONLY innate property an object can have, without invoking some form of subjective description. I will get into the nature of objects at a later date, since this response will take up most of my available time for the day.
"...if our knowledge of an object's existence is irrelevant, then how relevant are it's dimensions and location?"
EXTREMELY relevant!'Knowledge' is based on true statements, true statements are based of being verified with how the world is, verification is solely based on observer-dependent subjectivity. If our definitions are to be objective, then the subject must be excluded from the definitions. An object's shape and location are not observer-dependent. If we can objectively define both these terms, as well as objectively define 'existence', is this not preferred over 'subjective interpretations'?
"If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, you're saying that you *believe*..."
I never even IMPLIED 'belief' or 'knowledge' factored in my out-right claim that "absolute truth does not exist"... I was agreeing with the post's header. When I said, "show me a picture of absolute truth", I was euphemistically equating 'absolute truth' with 'shape and location'(i.e.,'existing').
Does 'absolute truth' have the innate property of shape, as an object does? Does 'absolute truth' have location as a real object does? If it does exist, it should have a shape that is easily illustrated and location that is easily understood. If it does not have these necessary conditions, then 'absolute truth' does not exist. I will, again, go into this at a later time.
#91 Jan 24, 2013
"As far as determining the existence of absolute truth, see my above questions about believing it."
Belief, knowledge, truth, perception, proof are all SUBJECTIVE, and I have never posited any other these notions as essential to my definitions. If you choose to believe in unicorns, that's fine. But don't expect someone who understands objective explanation to buy into it.
If a concept or object are found to be by definition, inconsistent with itself AND existence, no amount of 'belief' will help resurrect the notion as objective. This applies to claims of 'absolute truth', as well as 'expanding space', or 'big bang', or 'square circles'.
"...It's belief...Much like theory..."
This shows a gross misunderstanding of what a 'Theory' is. In science, a 'Theory' is the rational explanation of a consummated event. It is NOT an HYPOTHESIS. The Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method is before the 'Theory' stage. They are NOT synonymous.
Well, I hope I've answered your questions to post #80. I will continue with my previously mentioned outline at a later date, addressing some of your concerns over the definition of object I provided, and offer a definition of Concept, so that we can ultimately DETERMINE (not blindly believe) that 'absolute truth' does not, in fact, exist...
#93 Jan 25, 2013
So, now to address your concerns over objects you think should be categorized as concepts.
To begin, I think you should at least provide a definition of what you think concepts are before you can possibly classify anything as a concept.
But, with that said, I can probably surmise how you might define objects as opposed to concepts. You probably think objects are 'real things' and concepts are 'imaginary things', or 'not-physical things'. But here you might be confusing the definitions of 'object','concept' and 'existence'. Remember, the definition of object has nothing to do with physical presence; that is reserved for 'existence'. We will explore this distinction later...
Your question deals with the fictitious character Bilbo Baggins and the yet to be released 2020 BMW M6. The question was 'how do these objects have spatial separation?' Simple, while the definition of what an object is has NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESENCE, it does allow for objects that DON'T exist, such as circles and Superman. When you were doing Geometry, did your teacher ask you to find the circumference of a 'concept' or an 'object'?
Another way of seeing how objects are not restricted to only physical presence is to look at the language we use to refer to objects.
When see make the statement, "the Earth exists", are we saying "the object that has physical presence has physical presence"? Or are we saying "the object that has shape (Earth) also has presence (location)"?
The issue here is reference. When we use the name 'earth', what is the word's referent? Now let's imagine millions of years have passed by, the earth has exploded, leaving humans to venture into space in search of a new home. When we state "the Earth does not exist anymore", the word 'earth' refers to an OBJECT, not a concept, of earth. We are referring to something, not nothing. The statement is claiming that SOMETHING does not exist anymore, not NOTHING does not exist anymore...
I may have gone deeper into the ontology of object than is necessary, but you wanted to know how we can refer to objects that don't exist. I don't think its necessary for our inquiry into 'absolute truth', but I you want to understand more, I'd be glad to explain further.
Objects are the only mediator of action in the universe. No action occurs without an object's participation. In other words, objects precede actions, even motion. A runner must exist if the action of 'running' is described.'Running' cannot occur without a runner or ground to run on.
This is key to the next point, the definition of a concept. A concept is a relationship between two or more objects. In the example of the runner and 'running' above,'running' is the concept. Its the relation between the runner and the ground (two objects). Objects are what things are, concepts are what things do.
Concepts, by their definition, do not have the property of shape. They are used to understand the relationship between two or more objects. What is the runner doing in relation to the ground, answer: running!
(Just a little test for your understanding)
Using these definitions, what is the image in a picture or on your computer screen, an object or a concept?
Now that I have provided the definitions, as well as some defense for these definitions, I will next determine which category qualifies for existence...
Since: Jan 13
#94 Jan 25, 2013
I think you've done a much better job at defending your position (and explaining things).
I'll get around to asking a ton of questions later...most likely after your 'existence' post.
To answer yours though, according to what you're saying; if a concept is simply an action (the relation between two objects), then sitting here 'looking' at, say, an image of an advertisement here on topix,[looking] is the concept. The image would have to be the object. Even if the argument were made that the image were the concept, and the monitor were the object - the image would still be the object, because the concept would be the monitor 'displaying' the object (image)?
Anyway - tons of questions...
#95 Jan 25, 2013
That absolute truth does not exist is not entirely true.
Yet with a reasonable amount of deniability, I can neither agree with nor deny your statements.
#96 Jan 26, 2013
Your last post was quite right on as far as the result, but the rational might need a little fine tuning.
Concepts can include "action", but are more appropriately defined as associations or relations to objects. Keep in mind, like the definition of object, a concept does not require the object to have presence or location. The purpose of a concept is to convey meaning. Through meaning, we can conceptualize the associations between objects and understand their relationships within an event.
To this end, a concept is the basis of our understanding and intelligence.
So, now on to which of these categories qualifies for existence.
All words, no matter the language, resolve to either what something is (object) or what something does (concept). This means either objects OR concepts can exist. Why, would you ask. Because, shape-ness is the ONLY intrinsic, innate property that can be used to distinguish between objects and concepts by why of their ontology.
To express it differently, all objects are NOUNS, and all concepts are VERBS. Notice I did NOT say all nouns are objects. This is due to the difference between CONTEXTUAL grammar and SYNTACTIC grammar. Just because we can use the words 'truth','wife' and 'universe' as nouns in syntactic grammar, does not mean they are nouns within the contextual ontology of their referent. If you need clarification, I will explain later.
Nonetheless, either a word resolves to something that has shape, or it doesn't have shape. IT CAN'T BE BOTH!
But a concept cannot qualify for existence because objects precede their associations. It doesn't make sense to say an association exists, like 'running', but not the objects involved ('runner' and 'surface'). Especially when the association (running) needs the objects to commensurate the event, at all.
So the only category that qualifies for existence are objects. Concepts cannot, ever 'exist'.
Later, I will complete this discourse with the final definition of 'existence' and how the definitions prevent 'absolute truth' from ever possibly being real.
#97 Jan 26, 2013
The Holy Bible,and EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ,IS 'Absolute TRUTH'.
#98 Jan 27, 2013
At least Doctor REALITY understands 'truth' only applies to statements and propositions, not objects...
Anyway, so far, I have defined the KEY TERMS object and concept, as well as explained which would qualify for existence. Now we can move into what the definition of existence is, and how our key terms help determine the existence of 'absolute truth'...
Since we have already determined only objects can exist, the next step is to define 'existence' in an objective way. Since objects would 'exist' whether or not we were around to see them, it only follows the definition should predicate observer-independent terms.
We have already determined 'object' in observer-independent terms, i.e., that which has shape. It does not require perception, observation or knowledge. But what IS existence?
Simple, its physical presence. The difference between an object that 'exists' and one that doesn't is the notion of location, presence in the universe.
But now, we must define 'location' using objective terms, that are clear, concise and consistent...
In a previous post, I submitted the definition of 'location' as "the static distance between objects". But this is not adequate. This is actually the definition for 'space'.
Location is the set of static distances from the test object, to all the other objects in the Universe.
This does not require 'knowledge' of all the objects and their positions in the universe. Location is a concept that relates two or more objects. It is an association, not an absolute. For our 'observations', we only require the position of three points in space to determine an object's location in space. The position is in relation to other objects. The definition of location avoids reference to observer-dependent actions, and is therefore objectively defined.
So, the definition of 'exist' is shape with location.
But how does this apply in the 'real' world? Don't we have to KNOW where an object is to determine if it exists?
This is a misleading question posed by those who actually BELIEVE an object's existence can be PROVEN. It implicitly injects observer-DEPENDENT notions of 'observation','evidence','proo f' and 'verification' into our OBJECTIVE definitions.
The problem with their COMPLEX QUESTION (fallacy) is that...
NO OBJECT IS OR EVER HAS BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST!
Any scientist or philosopher can confirm this.
Objects in both scientific and philosophical inquiry are ASSUMED to exist, then consummated events are rationally analyzed. In the Scientific Method, an object is in the Hypothesis, setting the stage for the event and the explanation of the event.
When attempting to determine the cause of why a ball falls to the floor, we first state, "Let it be the case a ball is located on the edge of a table..." i.e., assume the ball exists and is located on the table.
A terms ontological nature determines if it is even possible to have physical presence. Take for example, a 'square circle'.
We know the definition of a square and the definition of a circle, but joining the two notions results in a referent that is impossible to have physical presence. The definitions are incompatible and inconsistent with each other.
If a term's very nature is consistent with itself and the ontology of 'existence', then we can assume it's existence, and analyze it's interaction with other objects in the universe...
#99 Jan 27, 2013
Now that we have an ontology to analyze the term 'absolute truth', let's examine if it could possibly exist...
To begin, the very ontology of 'absolute truth' does NOT resolve to an object. It does not have the property of shape-ness, and therefore doesn't qualify for existence.
Next, we also can determine if it would be self-referentially consistent. Truth, as I have defined it previously, is the verification of statements and propositions resolve to the world/universe. Truth is, by definition, a concept. It describes the relationship between statements made about the world/universe and someone verifying if the statement represents how the world is.
But the term 'absolute' needs to be defined as well. You have submitted the definition to be "something that is independent of time, place or person". Does 'absolute' has the property of shape-ness? I don't think so. Therefore, it is a concept. As we know, a concept is the relationship or association between two or more objects.
But the definition of 'absolute' lacks any notion of associating objects. See, the very ontology of 'absolute' is INDEPENDENT of any objects or concepts, like time (a concept), place (location) or person (OBJECTS). Proponents of absolutes would acknowledge that the universe could be void of any objects, and absolutes would still persist.
Now we see that the very ontology (nature) of an absolute is completely inconsistent with itself. Its a relationship between two or more objects (a CONCEPT) that has NO relationship between ANY objects!
So, to give a long-winded answer,'absolute truth' is not just ontologically impossible to exist, but is also self-referentially inconsistent with itself, even if a case could be made for it's 'shape-ness'.
Hope this helps understand why 'absolute truth' does not, IN FACT, exist.
#100 Jan 27, 2013
Just keepin' it REAL.
#101 Jan 27, 2013
Alkuajatus describes how to observe the inner reality and what the obstacles are. For example it doesn't offer you more thoughts to believe in, which are what closes your mind, it describes how thoughts work, so a good comparison is that it's a map, not the landscape.
“The name is ironic. I'm a girl”
Since: Jan 13
Fletcher, NC &Fayetteville, NC
#102 Jan 27, 2013
I got yer absolute truth right here in my crotch!
WasteWater _ wrote:
<quoted text> Okay nutcase, we get it... but don't really care. I believe in God and am gay. What a hypocrisy, ey? NOT! Bob, we all know your gay, you just don't act on your sexual urges.
So you believe in gods and goddesses, ghosts and angels, gods on earth and heaven, the devil and hell, and that has something to do with sexual orientation?
What a sicko you are.
WasteWater calling Twiigs_n_b3rriez a sicko? What an honor!
I am thrilled with the attention, no matter how random. That is my only goal in life. Has been since I was a gay infant wanting my butt wiped that special way.
But YOU are the sicko WasteWater!
You pretend to support gay causes, but only the limp-wristed light-in-the-loafers boa-wearing gays.
A beautifully oiled-up body builder makes you vomit.
And any rough stuff or even sex in the fun zones makes you flat out bigoted. You are quite happy to discriminate against gays with multiple partners and lack of condoms, saying AIDS is God's way of keeping vermin down.
Sick, sick, sicko!
“make someone smile today”
Since: Jan 13
#103 Jan 27, 2013
An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact.
Its difficult to disprove the concept of absolute truth, since saying that there are no absolute truths - that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists - is itself an absolute truth.
Since: Jan 13
#104 Jan 27, 2013
"NO OBJECT IS OR EVER HAS BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST!"
Can you elaborate on this?
Are you saying it can't be proven that my shampoo bottle exists? Furthermore, are you saying that it can't be proven that you or I exist?
...remember those guys in the white coats we were talking about some time back? Let's keep them on speed-dial - just to be safe.:)
#105 Jan 28, 2013
You should read my posts concerning your 'logic'... you might learn something.
"Say goodnight, Gracie"
Elaborate on what?
Have you 'discovered' the proof of existence? You might want to publish. I think several science and philosophy journals would take your entry....
Or maybe you should keep the number for Arkham on the refrigerator door, just in case you forget how to use speed-dial...
Here I thought you INFERRED the existence of your Head and Shoulders shampoo bottle when you grabbed it and poured it in your hand.
Inference and proof are two different beasts. One deals with inferential logic (inference), and proof deals with deductive logic. This is basic logic and we are getting WAY off topic...
We're supposed to be discussing the ontology of 'absolute truth', not the epistemology of objects.
Epistemology is the field philosophers go into after getting a B- in Metaphysics and a C+ in Logic...
Perhaps you can demonstrate your proof for the existence of an object? How about proving I exist. Maybe just the computer in front of you.
Any of these would be acceptable. But I think what you will do is refer back to your subjective sensory system. "Look, I can see it, feel it, touch it... therefore it is proven to exist". This is NOT a valid deductive argument. And ONLY valid deductive arguments, where the premises are 'true', can demonstrate 'proof'.
Many people spend a tremendous amount of time DOING logic, without understanding WHAT logic is. Perhaps a refresher course would be enlightening.
You said you had a 'ton of questions, but wanted to wait until after my 'existence' post to ask them'. Now's the time to ask.
Add your comments below
|The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15)||1 min||Rosa_Winkel||38,486|
|Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07)||2 min||Catholic24||641,779|
|Play "end of the word" part 2||5 min||Al Capone||1,734|
|Looking for a second husband to fulfill fantasy (Aug '13)||19 min||Rita||3|
|Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07)||20 min||Rosa_Winkel||104,750|
|If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07)||46 min||janeebee||18,713|
|Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07)||47 min||LAWEST100||44,423|
|Prove there's a god. (Mar '08)||1 hr||The Hangman||970,067|
Find what you want!
Search Top Stories Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC