Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSquare circles are indeed inconsistent with the known universe but we have no way of knowing if they are inconsistent with the unknown universe. Therefore even the 'fact' that there are no square circles isn't absolute.
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
The Ghost takes a bow.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAccording to your use of the word 'absolute' can anything be known to be absolute?
Square circles are indeed inconsistent with the known universe but we have no way of knowing if they are inconsistent with the unknown universe. Therefore even the 'fact' that there are no square circles isn't absolute.
The Ghost takes a bow.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe Ghost is messing about here.
Square circles are indeed inconsistent with the known universe but we have no way of knowing if they are inconsistent with the unknown universe. Therefore even the 'fact' that there are no square circles isn't absolute.
The Ghost takes a bow.
A square is, I would suggest, different to a circle by definition. The many worlds approach will not produce one in which they are not different by definition.
However, the concept of "squaring a circle" is not that silly. Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, basicaly because of π. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to π.
The expression "squaring the circle" is therefore used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible. If something is intrinsically impossible, then no matter how many worlds you posit, none willl alter that situation. [Remember, you have to posit a possible world, not just any old world.]
This may be all Greek to Fetchmyjunk, who is making the ambitious [not] and imaginative [not at all] claim that trivial tautologies are absolutely true.
What is in contention here is not that they are true, I do not think you are claiming this one is untrue.
The question is, are they "ABSOLUTELY" true, where the significance of "absolutely" as a qualifier seems to be similar to the significance of shouting in an argument.
I think it is sufficient to say that if, in order to be "absolute," a truth has to be trivial and tautologous, then the term is not worth a lot. We need a better argument from Fetchmyjunk before we take him seriously.
Originally posted by finneganThe Ghost concurs.
The Ghost is messing about here.
A square is, I would suggest, different to a circle by definition. The many worlds approach will not produce one in which they are not different by definition.
However, the concept of "squaring a circle" is not that silly. Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of cons ...[text shortened]... rm is not worth a lot. We need a better argument from Fetchmyjunk before we take him seriously.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySure you always come back to the absolute and "absolute" is a confused and pointless term that qualifies its partner (absolute truth, absolute falehood) without contributing any value whatever.
absolutely not, or absolutely true always brings it back to the absolute
It is not a term of rational or logical discussion - it is a rhetorical trick designed to spread confusion in the interest of deceiving people.
See the Atheism and Logic thread for the details btw. The repetition of foolish arguments on diverse threads is tiresome.
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganBy rejecting the qualifier 'absolute', aren't you saying truth is 'relative'? If you remove the qualifier 'absolute' doesn't that mean that truth can change? If truth can change is it really 'true'? By 'true' I mean being in accordance with reality.
Sure you always come back to the absolute and "absolute" is a confused and pointless term that qualifies its partner (absolute truth, absolute falehood) without contributing any value whatever.
It is not a term of rational or logical discussion - it is a rhetorical trick designed to spread confusion in the interest of deceiving people.
See the Ath ...[text shortened]... hread for the details btw. The repetition of foolish arguments on diverse threads is tiresome.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThat was my point, you can say nothing is true, and we know this to be true! Which does
By rejecting the qualifier 'absolute', aren't you saying truth is 'relative'? If you remove the qualifier 'absolute' doesn't that mean that truth can change? If truth can change is it really 'true'? By 'true' I mean being in accordance with reality.
let you know truth is real. Perspectives can alter what we think, but our thoughts are not
the end all be all of truth only opinion. We are in a sea of reality looking for the water. 🙂
Originally posted by KellyJayBy water you mean red wine yeah?
That was my point, you can say nothing is true, and we know this to be true! Which does
let you know truth is real. Perspectives can alter what we think, but our thoughts are not
the end all be all of truth only opinion. We are in a sea of reality looking for the water. 🙂