Is there any such thing as an absolute?

In the thread "If God ever stopped intervening in nature" the topic has drifted into a discussion about the existence of absolute truths. I am not sure if it has any legs but I am interested and think that the topic is worthy of it's own thread.So the question is 'Is there any such thing as an absolute?'Definition

quote:

---

Absolute
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
2. a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

---

I see a bit of a problem with this as it seems to me that the way in which we know things is by relating them to other things. The act of knowing is a process of categorizing sensory input into a hierarchy of relationships. Consciousness itself is the state of being aware of the differences between entities. So it may be that this definition is not the right one as it is somewhat self defeating. I suspect that it is a failure of language because I can hold the concept in my mind but it breaks down when I try to verbalize it. The definition is open for debate.As a starting point I would like to dispute the idea that imagining a reality that is in opposition to what we observe is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe. From Message 109If .9999...9 is equal to 1 then non-zero chances can largely be dismissed. The same way that I can dismiss the non-zero possibility that I can walk through a wall. In the real world the possibility that I can walk through a wall is zero. I know this.P.S. I am only connected occasionally so expect long delays from me.

Thread copied here from the Is there any such thing as an absolute? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, but they tend to be tautologies: what is is what is. But this is true by definition:1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 ≡ 11/3 ≡ 0.3333 ... 3 by definition of decimal equivalences so0.3333 ... 3 + 0.3333 ... 3 + 0.3333 ... 3 ≡ 1Let's try 0.9999 ... 8999 ... 9 instead ... Why? The chance is small but it is not non-existent, dismissing it is just using your opinion\bias rather than any real argument that it "can largely be dismissed." You are just playing probabilities. Well I've walked through walls. Of course the definition of wall comes in to play here.But there is also the Douglas Adams thing about flying -- you jump at the ground and then miss ...

Well, yes. There is such a thing as absolute nonsense.There's a lot of absolute nonsense written about "absolute truth."

Well, there's the speed of light...
By adding the terminal 9, by the way, you make that first bit untrue.Nevertheless, we can choose to dismiss whatever we like, it doesn't make them go away, though. We can say God created the Earth and the universe etc in 6 days and that I know this absolutely, and then simply dismiss things which have non-zero chances of being true that challenge my 'knowledge'. If we want we could do that kind of thing. Then you're wrong.Look - forget the extreme philosophical examples for a moment.You have a head injury. You wake up and next to you see someone who looks like your mother/wife/sister/brother/father whatever, but it isn't them. They do sound like them. And they've studied them well based on the content of their speech. But it isn't them. They assure you they are who they appear to be. They have your loved one's passport, the imposters! Then more imposters from your friends and family turn up.This is your perception of reality. Its how things are from your perspective.They tell you about the head injury and Capgras Delusion, but they're clearly just trying to trick you for some reason. Are they CIA? CSIS? Aliens?

quote:

---

As a starting point I would like to dispute the idea that imagining a reality that is in opposition to what we observe is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe.

---

You observe imposters - can you be sure of that or do you have Capgras syndrome? I'm saying reality is in opposition to what you observe. I think this is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe.If you want to get picky about 'observation' you are free to replace my example with some kind of hallucinatory condition instead.

I think the answer is conditional. YES - If we understand a system completely, then we can have absolutes within that system.Example: Math
-if we define the numbers 1 to 10 as used in a base 10 real number system
-and define addition and equality
-then we can say that 2 + 3 = 5 and that this is absolutely true within the system we have definedExample: Blizzard Creating World of Warcraft
-if Blizzard creates a video game
-and Blizzard defines all the laws within that game through coding the engine that drives the game
-then Blizzard can say that a level 70 character is more powerful than a level 3 character and that this is absolutely true within the game Blizzard createdNO - If we do not understand a system completely or cannot tell whether or not we understand a system completely, then we cannot have absolutes within that system.Example: Reality
-we do not know how reality was created
-we do not know the future of reality
-we do not know if our objective observations of reality are "correct for now" vs. "correct forever"
-we do not know if our objective observations of reality are "close enough to reality for our usage" vs. "exact representations of reality for all usages"Without knowing these factors, we have no "meter stick of reality" with which to measure our results against to verify if they actually are exact representations or not.Example: Casually Playing World of Warcraft
-in just running around World of Warcraft... I don't specifically know whether or not a level 3 character is more powerful than a level 70 character.
-however, by learning the system... such a thing can become obvious to me
-but, without actually looking at the source code I would never know "absolutely" whether or not such a thing is actually true for all level 3 characters and all level 70 characters (maybe there's some equipment or boosters I just don't know about that could make a level 3 character more powerful)The point is that there's a difference between Blizzard defining all the rules in World of Warcraft and us living in reality where we don't know the definitions for all the rules (or even if such definitions actually exist).We identify this difference by saying we know how World of Warcraft works absolutely because we can look at the code that powers it's engine.
We cannot know how reality works absolutely because we don't even know if there is a "code" that powers it's engine. I agree with your sentiment here when talking about every day normal life.
However, your sentiment is incorrect when strictly talking about things being "absolute."

quote:

---

Absolute
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

---

If there's a non-zero chance, then it's not "total" and it's not "absolute."You can dismiss it as much as you like... or use the word absolute to represent these things in every day normal life (like everyone does).
But... if you want to get specific and ask if we actually can or can't know anything "without a non-zero chance against it" about reality... then the answer is "no." This is true if you want to use the strict definition of the word "absolute" or if you'd like to simply talk about the actual idea that the strict definition represents.Example:In World of Warcraft there is a "total" absolute 0% chance that you can walk through walls. (Yes... yes... not those walls or that bug... we're just talking about an example).
We know this absolutely because we can look at the source code and verify that this is true.In reality we think there is a non-zero chance that you can walk through walls because our current understanding of the universe (quantum mechanics) leads us to believe that this number exists.
But... is there actually a non-zero chance?
We don't know.
Maybe our current understanding of quantum mechanics is not "totally" accurate of reality.
Add in that it also seems like we will never know whether or not any future understanding of the universe is, indeed, "totally" accurate of reality... and you can see how this cannot be strictly described as "absolute."This issues isn't about whether or not the "non-zero" chance exists... the issue is about whether or not our calculations lead us to the correct number that exactly represents reality.
-maybe there is, actually, a 0% chance that you can walk through walls (and our current understanding is just a bit off).
-maybe there is, actually, a non-zero chance that you can walk through walls... but it's not the same non-zero chance that our current calculations would result in (again... because our current understanding may be just a bit off).Who knows? Maybe one day we will learn "the coding of the engine for reality" and we will then be able to compare our results to that. But that's certainly not today... so, today, we cannot say we know anything about reality "absolutely." Simply because we do not know the entire system.

There are theoretical absolutes. Absolute zero is the situation in which there is no kinetic energy. But is the theory absolutely accurate?There are mathematical absolutes. If I owe you five dollars, it's minus five on my balance sheet and plus five on yours but it's the same five dollars. The absolute value is five. Five is five.

In the absence of certainty what is there but (evidence based) estimation of likelihood?Is there any knowledge we can possess which isn't either tautological or "playing probabilities"....? Can you give an example of such? Is there any knowledge that isn't tautological in your view and how certain of such knowledge can we be?

I will say at the start that I believe you are confusing practical certainty with absolute certainty.

quote:

---

As a starting point I would like to dispute the idea that imagining a reality that is in opposition to what we observe is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe.

---

I think that this is misleadingly phrased. The Matrix is not in opposition to what we observe in the sense of being inconsistent with what we observe. And since it is consistent with what we observe how can we be absolutely certain that we are not in the Matrix?If we can imagine something that is possibly true given all the evidence we have - or even seems possibly true to us - then we cannot be absolutely certain that it is false, can we? We might be practically certain based on other considerations, but as phrased your statement is clearly wrong.

quote:

---

If .9999...9 is equal to 1 then non-zero chances can largely be dismissed. The same way that I can dismiss the non-zero possibility that I can walk through a wall. In the real world the possibility that I can walk through a wall is zero. I know this.

---

I'll agree that we can absolutely dismiss options which we know for certain to have an infinitely small probability. I'll even agree that we can be practically certaiin that things we can show to be of extremely low probability are not true. But if you mean anything more your argument doesn't support that.

Your just not doing it right try it with your head first and get some momentum going David copperfild can do it why cant you? Isnt absolute zero absolute or does possibly quantum mechanics allow for something to go below absolute zero?

Lots of good answers here and much food for thought.The best reduction that I can manage this morning is to ask if you all agree that there is, in fact, an absolute state of the universe? That there is such a thing as an absolute truth about the way that things are or the way that the universe works? It seems like a silly question and that the answer is of course there is. The question about whether or not we can know it is a separate question. How many times do I have to bounce off the wall before I can know that I will not be going through it? I mean I will not live long enough to bounce off the wall enough times before I encounter the one time that I actually go through it. It seems to me that the fact is that the real possibility of me going through the wall is zero. I appreciate Paulk's distinction between practical and absolute certainty but with hypothetical possibilities on the one side and the span of time on the other, how many 'solid' objects have ever passed through another 'solid' object?The fact that my (our) cognition is not perfect is not lost on me. However, repetition and verification and consensus serve to bring the chances of being wrong down. Can they not bring them down to zero?I think that Straggler asks a good question. What other way than by definition is there to know that something is true? How can we know anything without using definitions?

I like your answer and your idea of conditions, but I think you're confusing IS there an absolute answer and can we KNOW our answer is THE absolute answer.For example, take a simple question like "Is there a god?" Now there is an absolute answer to that question, the answer would be absolutely true; it is either YES, there is a god or No, there is not a god. The answer to that question is not subjective, it does not depend on my opinion or your opinion or a vote of the people, it is an absolute truth - either there IS a god or IS NOT a god.Now, if I say "Yes, there is a god" then your question becomes "Do we know enough about the system to determine that 'yes' is the correct answer to the question." This is where the subjectivity comes in. You may say "No, we do not know enough about the system to determine if that is correct." while I may say "Yes, we do know enough to say that answer is correct." However, neither opinion changes the reality of the actual correct answer.I would also question if we can ever be absolutely certain that we know we understand ANY system well enough to put it in the "Yes" category? Part of the problem is that reality is an abstract construct, not a concrete, physical entity. I like Socrates cave analogy (at least in part). We only see a shadow of reality and understanding of reality becomes a subjective experience. Certainly, some things we have a much clearer picture of than others, but they can still be viewed in a subjective manner.The age of the earth is one such example. There is only one absolute answer (for simplicity's sake, either old or young). Those of us that hold to an old earth view would say that those that have a young earth view are denying reality. And those that hold a young earth view would say that they have been given the absolute answer in advance and that anything that contradicts that absolute answer is an illusion.But in the end, none of us has access to the ABSOLUTE answer, we only try to understand the representation of reality we have in the best possible manner we can.Even something like mathematics. I don't think we REALLY understand WHY mathematics works, but it works so consistently that we can rely on it to provide absolute answers. 2 + 2 will always equal 4 , but WHY?So bottom line:Is there such thing as an absolute truth? - YesCan we know what that absolute answer is? - apply the subjective exercise involving our knowledge of the system.HBD

I don't think it's a separate question at all. If you don't/can't know what the absolute truth is, how can you know it's absolute?

Know absolutely? No amount of times will be sufficient. It's unlikely, but a freak Quantum Tunnelling event does have a certain probability of occurring, I suppose. Probably. No. Otherwise you could dismiss the probability of winning the lottery as zero. After all, you could play all your life without winning. Indeed, that's what'll probably happen.The real probability is very nearly zero.
The practical, every day probability is zero. We've only observed the tiniest fraction of such interactions. No. They can be good enough for practical purposes, but never absolutely zero. After all, you may be being deluded about the consensus. There's about a 5% chance you will suffer a psychotic episode once in your life. So there should always be some doubt.

Not confusing... ignoring. My message was already so long...
But, yes... you're right. I appreciate your additional take on the issue. And yeah, I agree that it's something that should also be kept in mind. I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're trying to get at here.
I think I agree with this statement, and it's part of what I was attempting to say as well... "we have no meter stick of reality in order to measure our results against."But then this part: I don't understand the issue here.
Why does 2 + 2 always equal 4?
Because we defined the numbers and addition and equality to make that so.
For simplicitiy's sake... it's a circular system we created.We use it because it works... it works because we defined it to be useful...The "WHY?" can always be traced back to first principles... the original axioms (definitions) of "Math". Real numbers, addition, equality...
Why did we choose those definitions? ---this question doesn't make a difference as to how the system works. The system works if you follow the definitions.Like this simple logic example:All hats are green.
Larry has a hat.
Therefore, Larry's hat is green.This will always be absolutely logically valid because I simply defined it to be so.
Why did I define it to be so? Who cares? Maybe I don't like Larry and think he should have a silly hat. It doesn't matter... Within the system it is still absolutely logically valid...Now, with math... maybe the definitions were slightly different a long, long time ago.
Then, reality made it obvious that certain other definitions would work better... so we changed the definitions.
Then, reality made it obvious that additional definitions for additional structures would also be helpful... so we added some definitions.
...even if this sort of thing happened, the reasons why the definitions exist are irrelevant to how the definitions control the system. The definitions absolutely control the system because that's specifically what they are defined to do.Attempting to count "units" (of anything...) obviously leads to defining "numbers."
Attempting to do inventory with these numbers of things obviously leads to addition and subtraction.
Attempting to do lots of inventory obviously leads to multiplication and division.
...we may get our motivation for defining math from reality. But once those definitions are in place, it doesn't matter why they were put there.2 + 2 = 4 simply because it is defined to be such.
2 + 2 does not = 5 simply because the definitions absolutely declare that this is wrong."Why is math useful?" Is a very interesting question... but it's answer (or possible lack thereof) has no bearing on the absolute-ness of the definitions when working within the system. I think so, yes.
Like my simple Larry example.Perhaps complicated examples like World of Warcraft have a bit "too much code" for any single person to ever understand the entire system completely... I would concede that point.But I do think simple things like the conclusion of my Larry example can be known absolutely from it's given premise.
What if the rules of logic somehow change in the future?
---this would not affect the rules of logic that were used for my Larry example. And, if we use the rules as defined for the Larry example, then the conclusion will always be the same. Even if "other rules" are available as an option. I like this analogy too.
This is my point though... my Larry example (obviously) is not "reality."
It's something I defined into existence. Therefore... no shadow.