|
Problems/Closing the Political Discussion/Debate Forum (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I can understand what youre implying, but again.... these formulas and examples are what we as humans have come up with to better understand these things. Although the earth may look round or sphyrical.... its not 100% true... we as humans have become to self ritrous in saying this is true.. no matter what.... becuase this theory or formula prooves it..
These formulas and may prove it in our mindset.. but we still dont know the Absolute truth....Im sure in thousands of years time... there will be more theories that will replace our current understanding of existence. |
WARNING! It's gonna be long!
I more or less agree with Cyrus King and I'll explain why. Science is essentially based around inductive logic. Meaning that through observation, we discover patterns. These patterns then lead us to a tentative hypothesis. Then that hypothesis is subjected to rigorous testing through further observation and examination. Finally, after that hypothesis becomes generally accepted, it becomes scientific theory. However the problem therein lies in the fact that it is still only a theory. Regardless of how sound or how long a theory has lasted, it can still be subjected to modification, transformation, or even outright rejection.
Let's use time as an example. Let's say we are proving a theory that time is the same everywhere. A minute takes just as much time in Paris, London, New York, etc. as it does anywhere else. We test it in each city. We test it during the day, the night, the weekends, leap years, etc. In each and every case a minute equals a minute. A minute in New York takes as much time as a minute in London. We arrive at the theory that time is absolute. Now let's look at someone travelling at the speed of light in Iraq (Cmon you know we have to bring it up in every topic :crazy: ). A minute of time passing for him while he is travelling at the speed of light appears to be only a minute to him. However during that time a million years of time has passed for all of us. Low and behold even something as concrete as time is no longer absolute! Time is relative (theory of relativitey)!!!!
Now you mentioned gravity as an example. Yes there exists a force that we call gravity and we kind of understand its effects. However do we truly understand everything there is to know about gravity? My answer is ... no. My reason: Since gravity is directly dependant upon mass, and since we don't even KNOW or understand what 90% of the mass of the universe is (dark matter). I'm going to arrive at the conclusion that we don't really understand everything about gravity. For example, our universe is expanding due to the forces exerted from the big bang. Given the amount of mass contained within the universe, that rate of expansion should be declining due to gravity. However, there is some scientific evidence that shows that the rate of expansion is NOT declining but rather accelerating!! One theory being presented is that dark matter, despite having mass, does not have the properties of gravity, but the properties of anti-gravity!!! In addition, the expansion of the universe may be related to the creation of dark matter, thus dark matter's properties of anti gravity in addition to it's proposed development adds to the expansionism of our universe! I'm not saying this is a fully researched and sound scientific theory, this theory was presented to me by a noted astronomy speaker at a lecture (It involved research into burning candles for those of you that take an interest in astronomy) as a POSSIBLE explanation. My point is, that even the most seemingly obvious and sound scientific theory can evolve through further examination and relevation.
Breather ...
So why do I think that there are no absolute truths? Because human understanding are all based around human perspective. Like Cyrus King stated, science and to a lesser extent mathematics (If I were to describe ANYTHING as being the closest to absolute truth it would be mathematics) are human attempts to define and describe the world around us. In the end however, it is still limited to human perspective. For example, nowadays it makes sense that the earth is round due to sattelites, astronauts, and through mathematical calculation. However, to the human eye and to miedeval people the world appears flat. It was incomprehensible to envision the world as being anything but flat much less the reasons WHY it wasn't flat. However, now we understand that our perspective and perceptions misled us. In much the same way, we envision space around us to be 3 dimensional, flat, and extends in every direction forever. However, current scientific thinking is that the universe is not infinite and more surprisingly it may not be flat! One popular theory is that the universe itself is curved into a sphere like the Earth. Not in the way that the Earth and space around us are within this sphere but rather we reside on the outter edge of the sphere similarly to how we walk on the outside edge of the Earth! Yes I know it's difficult to imagine and almost impossible to picture but it was JUST as impossible to envision the Earth being round in the 1500s. What I'm trying to get at is that absolute truths may seem absolute to us, but they are distorted by our perception and our perspective. What we consider as absolute are ONLY relative to us humans. Since we lack the ability to understand EVERYTHING around us, we lack the ability to define what is truly absolute.
For anybody that made it to the very end you win a cookie! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So why do I think that there are no absolute truths? Because human understanding are all based around human perspective. Like Cyrus King stated, science and to a lesser extent mathematics (If I were to describe ANYTHING as being the closest to absolute truth it would be mathematics) are human attempts to define and describe the world around us. |
It is an absolute truth that I did not cease to exist yesterday. We can be sure of this, because had I, I would be unable to write this post.
Likewise, 1+1=2. We can be sure of this, because if it were false, all our technological advances which are dependent on mathematics would function improperly. It is not as if we came upon them by trial and error, but based upon carefully calculated formulae which could only produce functionally correct devices were the fundamental principles of their derivation true.
Likewise, I can tell myself with absolute certainty, that it is true that I believe in absolute truth. This requires no perception at all! Because all I am analyzing is my own thoughts, which are generated by the same tool I am using to analyze them.
Gravity, for the same reason as 1+1=2, is an absolute truth. Did gravity not exist in almost precisely the way it is defined in physics, technologies, such as satellites, which are dependent on it as a phenomenon, would be unable to function properly.
Logically, it appears in the following form:
NOT (gravity) implies NOT (satellite function)
By contrapositive:
(satellite function) implies (gravity)
Of course, additional absolute truths would be axioms of definition, etc, such as "What is true, is true" or "An apple is an apple." |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
there is defintely absolute truth. the question is whether or not humans can recognize it. I agree with arbiter that the simple existence of sattellites, and the fact that i do not float off my chair, proves gravity.
I see occriders point about us revamping theories, but our perceptions are irrelevant. to quote the X files "The truth is out there" whether we know it or not. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
there is defintely absolute truth. the question is whether or not humans can recognize it. I agree with arbiter that the simple existence of sattellites, and the fact that i do not float off my chair, proves gravity.
I see occriders point about us revamping theories, but our perceptions are irrelevant. to quote the X files "The truth is out there" whether we know it or not. |
Ok I'll agree that there definetely has to be absolute truth. But I still argue that we as humans are unable to define what absolute truth is. Arbiter you say that it's an absolute truth that you existed yesterday because otherwise you would not have been able to write you post. How do we know that you weren't killed in a car wreck a week ago and your brother is simply continuing on in your place? Yes the effect of gravity IS proven to exist but we can't say that it's effects and properties will remain the same tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, the day after that, etc. We can't simply state that mass is directly related to gravity since it's newly discovered that it may be possible that there are masses out there with properties of anti-gravity. Why would that mass have anti-gravity? We don't know ... will normal mass such as stars, planets, moons, etc. ALWAYS maintain properties of gravity and not anti-gravity? We don't know. So our statements that there is absolute truth to the relation of mass to gravity is not quite as absolute as we once thought. I picture scientists 200 years ago who claimed that the sun will rise the next day, the day after that, etc. Because it has risen every day for the past millenium and therefore will continue to rise. Well today, we know more and we realize that the sun WILL not rise on a day some 3 billion years from now. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| While absolute truth does exist, it is usually impossible for humans to be 100% sure of it. Taking gravity as an example, we can only know some manifestations of it, and from there try to realize what it infact is, but we can never be 100% certain that we are 100% right about it. Mathematics and logic would be an exception here, because there are logical statements that are 100% true, as are most mathematical theories. |
|
|
| shlomo_hamalech |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
You don't think his approach is ignorant?
Like I said I don't see blame, its not in my character. I see a problem and in my experience the solution is not proving who's right or wrong..
Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and you know this. If you read pro Israeli websites you are getting their perspective. Truth can be twisted in many ways, thats not to say there isn't truth on those websites, I'm sure there is quite a bit of truth there.
I'll tell you my personal opinion, since I've made my points without doing that so far.
I do support Israel, I do agree that the Palastine's are so focused on hate and propoganda that they don't see the problem really is mainly with their own leadership.. I think its sick and shamefull that children are tought to be killers and that people become human bombs.. All sick things.
The thing is you have to ask why is this? Because they have nothing to lose. That means you have to give them a reason to change their ways.. Many Israeli's are furious and hate them with a passion.. For good reason.
But that leaves you with two choices as I see it. Continue hating them and supporting the things that in return causes them to hate you. Destroy them all and continue dealing with horrible terrorist attacks for generations to come.
OR
Take the hard road to peace, that involves forgiving them for the past and of course for them to forgive as well.. Think of it like a married couple talking to a shrink, what they would be told is to forgive and truly move on from the past fighting.
People can only seek peace if its in their heart, and if you have the will and energy to accept peace with your enemies; then you are a brave and honourable man in my mind. Those who support continued violence and hate are in my mind taking the easy way out.
Its quite simple, but we all know that past suffering is hard to get over and to ask people who've lost loved ones in the past to forgive and seek peace is hard to do.
But that is the choice, suck it up and seek peace or deal with neverending terrorism for your children and their children.
Again I think the UN should step in to this conflict and the UN council should start real Peace negotiations. |
thor... you just took apart my entire post, and found 'flaws' within all of it... funny how my ranging article was totally wrong and based off ignorance as you say.
Where is your knowledge?
"The thing is you have to ask why is this? Because they have nothing to lose. That means you have to give them a reason to change their ways.."
LOL!! many societies have had it much worse then the so called 'palestinians' but they don't resort to killing.
bottom line as you don't know, is that the P.A. is training the young generation to kill and they are only focused on destroying israel.
Thus, there are chances this will happen. The future generation has inside burning hatred. They are going to unleash it in any way they can. This means more people will die. No one can guess correctly the numbers.
This problem has been overshadowed by peoples emotions getting involved and turnign this into a david-goliath problem. Well thats crap.
There is no such thing as a palestinian. I am going to make a new thread now... based off an intersting statement for you terrorist supporoters. Please answer it, or am I ignorant in everything again?
ARAFAT! THE TERRORISTS CALLING THEMSELVES 'palestinians' AND LIBERAL TERRORIST SYMPHISIZERS!!! THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER ONCE YOU EITHER DISSAPEAR, OR START COMING TO TERMS WITH REALITY!!! |
|
|
| occrider |
| Wow ... a philosophical discussion lasted two whole pages before the same old crap is brought up. I'm actually impressed. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wow ... a philosophical discussion lasted two whole pages before the same old crap is brought up. I'm actually impressed. |
It was actually interesting.. until Slow-boy intruded with his paranoid fanatic delusions... God.. JUST SHUT UP SHLOW_BOY!! |
|
|
| NFA |
u can say that gravity exists, and that it is true.
but the question is: "what is gravity?".
no scientist can answer this. no one can answer how it works. it's only a name give 2 something we can't explain.
for example, two bodies with a mass attract each other, no matter how far away they r, and u can call this a proven fact. but how do the two bodies 'know' that they r there in order to attract eachother? there r no present theories which explain this. gravity, therefore, is only a name given to a phenomenon we have observed and that we can calculate, but cannot explain.
so, because we have given it a name, we can say it exists, and that it is true. but we still don't have a clue about it's true nature. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NFA
u can say that gravity exists, and that it is true.
but the question is: "what is gravity?".
no scientist can answer this. no one can answer how it works. it's only a name give 2 something we can't explain.
for example, two bodies with a mass attract each other, no matter how far away they r, and u can call this a proven fact. but how do the two bodies 'know' that they r there in order to attract eachother? there r no present theories which explain this. gravity, therefore, is only a name given to a phenomenon we have observed and that we can calculate, but cannot explain.
so, because we have given it a name, we can say it exists, and that it is true. but we still don't have a clue about it's true nature. |
I definetely agree with that.
Just as a question though, can we ever actually know if something is an absolute truth? For example we say that there is absolute truth in the effect of gravity. Or we say that there is absolute truth in that the Sun is shining. But what if we're living a matrix like existence in which our perceptions are completely manipulated. In which case there may not be gravity or anything at all. So can we truly describe anything that is absolute truth? The only thing that I can think of that stands up to this test, is the absolute truth of our existence. Like Descartes said, I think therefore I am. Can anyone even think of a way that our existence is not an absolute truth? your thoughts ... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | but how do the two bodies 'know' that they r there in order to attract eachother? there r no present theories which explain this. |
If it helps, that has been explained (although whether it's true, we can't be certain).
Every mass excites space around it in a way that the amount of energy inside that space rises. When another mass gets near the excited space, the energy of that space starts to influence the new mass in a way that it attracts the new mass. So two bodies in space are not directly effecting each other, but are instead bringing energy into space between them which then acts on both bodies. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
If it helps, that has been explained (although whether it's true, we can't be certain).
Every mass excites space around it in a way that the amount of energy inside that space rises. When another mass gets near the excited space, the energy of that space starts to influence the new mass in a way that it attracts the new mass. So two bodies in space are not directly effecting each other, but are instead bringing energy into space between them which then acts on both bodies. |
Where is it getting that energy to excite the space around it? Shouldn't there be some kind of energy decay as a result of this? Otherwise you could say that energy is being generated from no energy. |
|
|
|
|
