If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Nice rebuttal, but I think you are letting Cat Sci drive the discussion without challenge. Electrons of atoms behave non-deterministically, and there are somethings about their states that cannot be established, but is that really the same thing as being non-absolute?Who knows what absolute means in this discussion? I sure don't. And I doubt that you and Cat Sci can state a definition that you agree on, and that makes the least bit of sense.

The error margins of our calculations do not detract from the correctness of that calculation. In fact knowing what they are is part of the calculation. We can be certain that the absolute value of some measurement falls between 2 extremes.When you say that we can't be absolutely sure if the moon really exists even when we are standing on it seems to be a dismissal of the preponderance of the evidence. So while the absolute nature of the moon may be obscure to us we can know that it absolutely exists. The non existence of the moon falls outside of our margin for error.

I thought that I was challenging this idea with statements like "If I get hit in the head with a rock I do not need to know anything about the molecular bonds within the rock to know what the absolute results of being hit in the head are." That's only the half of it. I don't even agree with my own definition In a discussion about absolutes the definition is likely to be an issue.

It is a rebuttal of sorts, but it is also a concession that the molecular bonds are actually an issue. We know a lot about the electrons and their consequences for chemical behavior despite not knowing precisely where they are every instant. Does that mean the electrons or their atoms are not absolute?

You continue to argue in favour of absolute knowledge on the basis of "preponderance of evidence". The point I think you are missing is that those you are arguing with consider empirical evidence as leading to conclusions which are inherently unable to lead to such absolute knowledge. This isn't an unusual philosophical position.From Wiki

quote:

---

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

​

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.

​

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.). This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable)

---

With regard to your continuing plea to pragmatsim - I will leave you with this: "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life."John Stuart Mill

Saying this and showing this are two different things.
One is very easy. The other has never been done before. I understand the idea you are trying to convey here.
I just don't know how to identify the difference between you simply claiming that this is true, and this actually being true.Let me go with the analogy of the 8' length of wood.You are basically saying: We cannot find a length of wood that is exactly 8' long, but we can be certain that there is absolutely wood between 3' and 4' along the length.
Then I would say: Well, actually, there's lots of space between all the 'wood atoms' at that level as well.
You would say: This is what we call "wood." It has wood atoms, and space. It is then absolutely wood between 3' and 4' along the length....which is exactly my point.
My point is: This is what we call "wood" right now. Before, we called "wood" a solid thing... then we discovered we were wrong.How can you guarantee that the definition we have given to "wood" right now is the absolute correct one that is not currently wrong in any way? If you cannot do that, then it's not absolute.If we're only saying "we are certain that 'something exists' that we call wood right now absolutely between 3' and 4' along the length."
Then I would agree... but this is one of those trivial-definitional absolutes that Ringo is talking about. It's rather boring.If you want to shorten that to say "we are absolutely certain that wood exists between 3' and 4' along the length"...
How can we honestly say that?
We are not certain that our current definition of "wood" is absolutely correct.
We are not certain that our current definition of "exists" is absolutely correct.
How can we then say that something is, definitively, absolutely "wood" and "exists" anywhere while we're not even positive about the definitions of those words?Replace "wood" with "moon" and I hope you can understand my continuing issues.Do you understand the problem I am attempting to describe?
If so, do you know of a way around it?
If so, can you show me your way around it without relying on your personal claims to the contrary?Edited by Stile, : You're an edit.

Given enough wood lets say one billion boards cut to 8 feet a number of them should be absolutely 8 feet. Even if by coincidence!Lets take the thought experiment into the extreme. Say a infinite number of 8 foot boards. Would you say none of them is 8 feet?You see we are merely arguing the sample size, it would take but one positive sample to refute your premise that there is no such thing as a 8 foot board. You believe that because the object being measured is composed of atoms and atoms are fuzzy and thus they can not be measured accurately? Or the "dimension" itself (8 feet), is not absolute
and thus can not be measured in terms of the absolute?I say that the limitation is not the object or the prescribed dimension to be measured, but the equipment and observer.If scientist can manipulate individual atoms then they can compose things with absolute number of atoms.IBM (atoms) - WikipediaSaying physical objects do not exist in a absolute state hence there are no absolutes is dogmatic imo and not based in fact. If it can be shown that the very atoms themselves can be counted and are numbered then that is the finite absolute measurement.

In a practical sense you're right, but not in an absolute sense. As soon as you start invoking practicality and pragmatism, absoluteness goes by the (ahem) board.--Percy

If I invent a wood replicator and instruct the 3D printer to make my board be composed of 190 trillion atoms x 390 trillion atoms x 190 trillion atomsCan you tell me my board does not have those measurements?
Everyone of my boards will be perfect.Who are we to say that someday humanity will not be able to construct things on that level of precision.

Do you believe that a 3D printer counts out atoms as it deposits material? If it were able to do so, do you believe that that would be enough to perfectly determine the dimension of a board?Is knowing the number of atoms what is required to make something absolute?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Uh, just hand me the circle and the circumference will come with it?

Previously you were arguing from a "let's be realistic" perspective suggesting that we should be practical and compromise on the requirements of something being absolute, now you're proposing a hypothetical that asks us to assume your hypothetical is possible (it also has the imprecision NoNukes noted).--Percy

I won't consider infinity, but even with a billion boards I contend that none of them will be absolutely 8 feet long.And it has nothing to do with sample size. It has to do with the nature of wood, or even matter, itself.We don't even have to go down to an atomic level. Take a look at the cells that make up wood: The "edge" of the wood is not going to be absolutely straight, because the cells just don't line up that way.So where do you draw the line of the "edge" so that you can say that it is absolutely 8 feet away from the other "edge"?Do you start in the middle of one of those valleys? Or do you start at the tip of one of those peaks? Doesn't the existence of the other make choosing the one not an absolute measurement? Actually, I believe both.As I said in Message 256:

quote:

---

Let's say we have a two-by-four. You're saying that it has an absolute length. So, God drags out a board, makes a cut with his saw, and proclaims this absolute truth: "This is an eight-foot two-by-four."

​

You walk out with your tape measure, slap it down; "ninety-six inches... on the dot."

​

Now, for the scientific perspective; we bust out a magnifying glass and take a closer look. The edge of the board is all pointy and spikey. Its hard to find an exact edge. We zoom in closer, its even crazier. The cells themselves have varying length. In closer and the particles become more like clouds. We cannot find a point to draw an actual edge on. We doubt that there's an absolute length because that shit is too blurry.

---

and:

quote:

---

And that's just the half of it

​

You gotta account for inerrancies in your observational methods. Maybe you can't see real good, and it was really on ninety-five and fifteen-sixteenths. Granted, that would mean that God was fucking with you.

​

But still, as we zoom in we might be loosing some clarity. Starting from your eyeballs and even your brain, themselves, down through the lens in the magnifying glass and microscope.

​

Even if there is an absolute truth, you still can't be sure that your objectification of it was absolutely correct.

---

Or as I said in Message 425:

quote:

---

Look at it this way: atoms are not discrete. Let's say this is the edge of a wall:

​

​

There is no "point" where the edge of the wall begins. Its gradual.

---

If edges are gradients instead of actually edges, then there's no way to measure them absolutely.I just can't see a way where we can have an absolute length of something. And actually, the evidence suggests that it is impossible. Well, I was raised Catholic But seriously, this is not a position I chose and am now trying to find support for. This is a position I arrived at from my understanding of the underlying nature of reality. But again, we can't really tell where one atom begins and another ends. They're all a bunch of clouds.I can still count clouds in the sky even though they have no edges between them.

Ahem:

quote:

---

I could draw a 1 inch circle on a piece of paper and cut it out and hand it to you, but then, the circumference would really only be an approximation of pi rather than actually being pi.

---

How would you find "one positive example"? You'd need something else that was "absolutely" 8 feet long to compare it to. You'd just drown in infinite regression.