Spirituality
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by finneganThat depends very much on the definition. Both words have a variety of definitions depending on context and in mathematics, there are most definitely geometries in which square circles could occur. In addition, under most definitions, a single point would turn out to be both a square and a circle.
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.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBy switching between threads aren't you repeating failed arguments in this one that have already been answered fully in another? What is the point of that?
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.
If something is true then it is true. The qualifiers "absolute" and / or "relative" are entirely redundant and serve no purpose whatsoever. You have seen this answer more than once and have not offered any counter argument whatsoever. The qualifier "whatsoever" could be deleted from the last two sentences without altering the meaning in any way whatsoever.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFair enough. I defer to your greater knowledge but I would also observe that it is a different argument to that offered by our ghostly friend and ally, who argued that there are no square circles in our world though there might be in another possible world, something I disputed.
That depends very much on the definition. Both words have a variety of definitions depending on context and in mathematics, there are most definitely geometries in which square circles could occur. In addition, under most definitions, a single point would turn out to be both a square and a circle.
If you are correct in your assertion that square circles can in fact occur in our world (let alone any other) then of course you have identified a fatal defect in Fetchmyjunk's claim that the phrase "There are no square circles" is an example of an absolute truth, or indeed even an example of truth, leaving aside the "absolute." Certainly he can take no pleasure in the discovery that his absolute truth can be the subject of intense dispute.
But tell me, how do you reconcile your claim with the statement that squaring a circle is an impossibility? Presumably you will wish to say that there is an alternative geometry where one does not require Pi or some such argument but it seems perverse to my untrained mind.
I am curious therefore.
Originally posted by finneganBy switching between threads aren't you repeating failed arguments in this one that have already been answered fully in another? What is the point of that?
By switching between threads aren't you repeating failed arguments in this one that have already been answered fully in another? What is the point of that?
If something is true then it is true. The qualifiers "absolute" and / or "relative" are entirely redundant and serve no purpose whatsoever. You have seen this answer more than once and have not of ...[text shortened]... ould be deleted from the last two sentences without altering the meaning in any way whatsoever.
So if it doesn't follow your way of thinking then it is false? Is only your way of thinking correct? Or is it false according to an objective standard of truth?
If something is true then it is true. The qualifiers "absolute" and / or "relative" are entirely redundant and serve no purpose whatsoever.
They obviously serve no purpose for you, that doesn't mean they can't serve a purpose for someone else. Or do you agree that what is true for you is true for everyone? If that is the case then 'absolute' would be a reasonable qualifier.
If something is true then it is true.
Wow so now it's ok use use the logic of "if A, then A?" Are you saying if A is true, then there is never a case A is not true? Why does this not support the idea of 'absolute' ?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs a rule of thumb, something that is true on this thread is true also on adjacent threads, while something that is nonsense on other threads does not cease to be nonsense when repeated on this thread.
[b]By switching between threads aren't you repeating failed arguments in this one that have already been answered fully in another? What is the point of that?
So if it doesn't follow your way of thinking then it is false? Is only your way of thinking correct? Or is it false according to an objective standard of truth?
If something is true ...[text shortened]... ue, then there is never a case A is not true? Why does this not support the idea of 'absolute' ?
Standards of truth can be objective. They are established socially. That is what makes them objective. This must be distinguished from psychological truth, the subjective validity of my inner life, which is of course a description of the way I privately view the world and my private beliefs about the world. We each have our own "truth" in that sense and it has a value. Through art we often find that we can share our inner lives to a surprising degree. But if I demand that others share my private belief system, then I am likely to encounter a wall of incomprehension. The fact that I believe something is not sufficient grounds for anyone else to share my belief and some might think, grounds to disagree on principle. If we want to achieve agreed beliefs socially then more is demanded of us.
I agree that the qualifiers "relative" and "absolute" serve a purpose when they are used in many contexts to support dogmatic thinking. Their purpose is not to influence the logical validity of a statement, lets alone its truth value. Their purpose is to make a claim for certain dogmatic assertions which is not justified by logic or reasoning. They have the same value as shouting or gesticulating has in demanding attention for the dogmatic claim and confusing anyone who begs to differ.
However, I have also said in another thread that if we make the charitable assumption that we are all reasonable and decent people seeking truth in our various ways, then the notion of an "absolute truth" serves as a fundamental axiom, a secure foundation, a fulcrum, on which to construct a logically coherent description of reality. There have been many attempts to construct such an edifice and in every case they have failed.
This is the significance of a quote I have given several times from John Locke. If an argument is constructed entirely on logic and reasoning, without empirical testing, then the scope for imaginative variations is infinite and endless. It will never, ever be possible to emerge from the maze with a serious conclusion. No matter how well we construct our arguments, it will always and forever be an easy thing to shift the grounds of the argument, question a definition, expose an inconsistency, in order to continue disagreeing to infinity and beyond. And sure enough, history shows this to be the case. In this forum few arguments about religous faith could not be clarified by reading what was said in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, circa 800CE. The discussions are going precisely nowhere and very, very slowly.Often that is because they are entered into in bad faith. People do not want to hear the truth. They want to be right. But if you care about the truth you must abandon the need to be right all the time and accept that you are often wrong.
Scientific Realism, for example, and Science generally, simply has no use for the concept of an absolute truth and no patience with the idea of a relative one. There is no single axiom on which you can construct science and no single killer refutation with which you can destroy it. If you think you have your finger on one such axiom - let us say, Newton's law of gravity - and then imagine that it is refuted by Relativity, undermined by Quantum Mechanics or threatened by String Theory (say) then you are mistaken. It could be refuted, in principle, by any number of empirical tests, but only if it were indeed false; in practice that has not yet happened and some very extreme tests have been made. Science does indeed construct complex theories from foundational principles, such as the law of gravity, but at every step of the way it is subject to empirical testing and potential refutation. And scientists do in fact abandon failed theories all the time. They abandon simple hypotheses easily and readily, more significant theoretical models with greater reluctance and more fundamental principles only when very firm evidence is presented to justify the shift. But change does happen often and empirical testing does happen all the time. That is the point - science does not rely exclusively on logic and reasoning, because on their own they are insufficient to make any serious statement about reality.
So when I say that "absolute" truth has no function, I am saying that it is a redundant notion, one that is out of date and has been thrown on the scrapheap of intellectual history. Today, claims to construct a logical account of reality by building from first principles and objective, absolute truths, are consistently shown to be spurious and a very good illustration of this was the web page on this very topic which you invited us to read, albeit on another thread from this one.
I have yet to discover if you agree on this thread with what you say on other threads.
Originally posted by finneganIt is only an impossibility under certain conditions. First off, it only applies to the use of a compass and ruler - which means we are talking about Euclidean geometry, finite iterations and probably other restrictions. But my single point solution can easily be squared, but one might argue that a single point doesn't meet the definition of a square or circle.
But tell me, how do you reconcile your claim with the statement that squaring a circle is an impossibility?
01 Jul 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeExcellent source I must say. Crop circles die in this clip:
A slight digression, but until fairly recently it probably would have been described as an absolute impossibility to 'drill a square hole.' - Until of course it became possible to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EYYNbdW5U
01 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks.
It is only an impossibility under certain conditions. First off, it only applies to the use of a compass and ruler - which means we are talking about Euclidean geometry, finite iterations and probably other restrictions. But my single point solution can easily be squared, but one might argue that a single point doesn't meet the definition of a square or circle.
