If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Hi Percy, I did go off the deep end.Hi No Nukes, yes simply knowing the amount of atoms will not make it precise as matter expands and contracts as well according to temperature volume and pressure.Hi Catholic Scientist, you make good sound arguments. Cellulose is imperfect hence no perfect boards or ability to measure perfectly.Hi Ringo, again another good point.So if the many worlds theory ever holds to be true then perhaps there will be a universe where absolutes exist.I am off to the pub to contemplate absolutes. Like how I absolutely enjoy a good lager.

Yes!Now for the problem: No one has ever been able to show that they can count anything absolutely.
What if we count 3 billion atoms, but there were 2 false-positives that we accidentally counted?
What if our counting method always logs those 2 false-positives as atoms?
How can you ever get around this problem?Why count atoms?
Why not say "here are two apples" and then say that there are absolutely 2 apples there?This is the exact same problem.What if one of the apples is a fake and we just cannot identify it as such?
Sometimes there are plastic fruits... we can test for that and make sure it is actually fleshy and organic.
Sometimes plums look like apples... we can test for that and check the chemical makeup of the apple.
The issue is that these are all possible fake-apples that we already know about.
What if there is a possible fake-apple that we don't know about?Sure, maybe it matches all 5 of our senses: taste, smell, touch, sound, sight - all apple-y delicious!
But what if another sense exists that humans do not have?
What if one apple contains this determining factor and the other does not?
What if such a factor should actually be included when deciding what is and is not an apple, but we just don't know anything about it because it doesn't make an obvious difference to our basic 5 senses?...then you're defining "atom" or "apple" or "whatever" to be something like "whatever can be detected by human senses..." which in itself is an admission that whatever you're discussing is not "absolute."When talking about absolutes, you would have to qualify your statement:There are absolutely 2 apples here according to what we know about apples.
There are 3 billion atoms here according to what we know about atoms.I can only think of 2 ways to remove such qualifiers.1. Know everything that can possibly be known about apples/atoms/whatever.
2. Ignore the issue and assume that we "know enough" for this not to be a concern.You're doing number 2 (heh...) which is just calling something an absolute when it actually isn't.
Currently, there is no known method to do number 1. Although, perhaps you can invent one? Yes!
All you have to do is show that you know everything that can possibly be known about atoms.
Otherwise, it's possible that your counting method could be flawed.
Therefore, if you don't show that you know everything that can possibly be known about atoms... your result is not "absolute."

1. No need to cut it out. I'll take the circle on any surface on which you care to mark it.2. And your problem is completely unrelated the issue of whether pi is absolute or exact. It is no more difficult to hand me 2 inches as it is to hand me pi inches.3. You would have the same problem with 1/2.4. Every four inch piece of string includes an infinite number of different pi length strings.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Stile, Yes I have come to that conclusion and have abandon this line of reason. I will continue to look for another approach in search of a absolute truth.All my arguments have been broken down and scattered like so many atoms.

Dear Ringo,Hay, grate hearing from you again. This is a Grate question; and one I hope it will be an easy one to answer.As to why the LNC is important; consider what the LNC is saying. So, we use the LNC to distinguish ‘True’ statements from ‘Faults’ statements.You have stated previously that There are no absolutes. Without the LNC there would be no way to determine if this statement was ‘True’ or if it was ‘Faults’Example: https://drive.google.com/...B8OvFjeOqRUfbm5wVDBNckVsLXc/view‘The above picture (you may have to right click to see the Image) is of my 2014 Jaguar sitting in my garage at 16:47:29 Hrs. on 11-15-’14.’Now, this treatment is one of three things; it is either ‘True’, ‘Faults’, or ‘logically incoherent’.If this vehicle is, actually, a ‘Jaguar’ and it is ‘sitting’ in ‘my garage’, then the statement is ‘True’On the other hand:If this vehicle is, in actuality, not a ‘Jaguar’ and/or it is not ‘sitting’ in ‘my garage’, then the statement is ‘Faults’If the sentence had Internal Contradictions then it would be ‘Logically Incoherent’.For example: if I said ‘This statement is not true’ that statement, speaking of itself, is neither ‘True’ nor ‘Faults’, it is ‘Logically Incoherent’.The LNC is importunate, scientifically speaking; because is separated ‘Fact’ from ‘Fiction’.--Example:Idea: A watched Pot never boils.You have to use the LNC to determine whether this statement is ‘True’ or ‘Not True’ in the same way, at the same time; since it cannot be both ‘True’ and ‘Not True’ in the same way, at the same time.If you put a pot of water on the stove, turn the stove on, and sit there without looking away from the pot, and the water starts to boil, at any point; then the statement is not ‘True’.If, on the other hand, you put a pot of water on the stove, turn the stove on, and sit there without looking away from the pot forever, and the water never boils; then the statement is ‘True’ if all other condition are the same as a pot that begins to boil without being watched.Now, the argument could be made that this is a ‘Logically Incoherent’ statement since it would be practically impossible for one person to sit and watch to see if a pot of water will ever boil; if, indeed, the water took an extraordinary amount of time to boil because it was being watched.However, this is an exercise in Logical thinking not practical application.As a matter of fact the very statement ‘Nothing is (or can be) True’ is, itself, ‘Logically Incoherent’ since that statement refutes itself as being ‘True’.It is the same with the statement There are no absolutes. This statement is self-defeating since it would have to be absolutely ‘True’ to be ‘true at all’ and that would, in itself, make it ‘Faults’; therefore the only logical conclusion is that this statement is ‘Logically Incoherent’.In arithmetic, the bases of Math:1+1 cannot equal ‘2’ and ‘5’ at the same time, in the same way.Ether it equals ‘Two’ or ‘Five’ or ‘Neither’; but it cannot equal both or all three.Of course you would have to use the Laws of Logic, including the LNC, to determine which of those three possibilities is ‘True’; and, according to the Laws of Logic, it must be one of those three choices; ‘Two’, ‘Five’ or ‘Neither’.Anything else would be ‘Logically Incoherent’.You could say: ‘well it could be another number 3, 7, or maybe 12 ’ you would be right that it could be; however, that would fall under the ‘Neither’ category since none of these numbers is a ‘Two’ or ‘Five’.--Conclusion, If two contradictory things could both be ‘True’ at the same time and in the same way the very thought of ‘True’ and ‘Faults’ would be irrelevant; actually everything would be irrelevant since nothing could be determined as ‘True’ or ‘Faults’.I hope this helps,
JRTjrEdited by Admin, : Fix link to image of SUV - a link to Google View should not use [img] tags.

You're illustrating my point. I don't think I have said, "There are no absolutes." At least I haven't said, "There are absolutely no absolutes."There is, in fact, no way to tell if the statement is absolutely true or absolutely false. There may be absolutes. If there are, there's a severe lack of examples in this thread. So there may not be any absolutes. How could we tell, absolutely, one way or the other? What separates fact from fiction in science is empirical truth, not "absolute" truth. If something appears to be true, if we can make useful predictions by assuming it's true, then it's true for scientific purposes.One example is Newtonian physics, which is empirically true for many purposes. However, for very small objects it turns out not to be true and for objects moving at very high velocities it also turns out not to be true. Newtonian physics is useful but not absolutely true.

Dear Ringo,Hope your Christmas and New Year’s was a Blast. (If you do not celebrate either, I still hope you have ben in good spirits the last few months.) If that statement were, in fact, ‘true’ it would be self-contradicting and therefore ‘false’. In other words, there is no logical way for that statement to be true (factual) therefore it is, by definition, false.I’ll try to explain it one more time. For that statement to be ‘true’ it would have to apply universally (absolutely) therefore negating its own truthfulness. The way we determined that Newtonian physics does not apply to objects smaller than atoms, or objects moving at or near the speed of light, is through the use of the LNC. You could not have ‘empirical truth’ without the Laws of Logic. Logic is the very foundation of experimentation (I.e. ‘empirical truth’) and thus Science.Thanks again for your continued interest,
JRTjr.

Atoms are not visible(to the naked eye) and yet what is seen is made from them. Food for thought.

You're getting there. Yes, in fact, both "true" and "false" are ambiguous. Any claim of absolute "truth" is inherently false. Conventional experiments showed that Newtonian physics was "true". Experiments with the LNC show that it is not true in all cases. "Truth" is ambiguous. What's "true" today might not be true tomorrow. And you couldn't have houses without hammers. That doesn't make hammers absolute.

Your example does not demonstrate ambiguity. It simply demonstrates the inadequacy of a particular tests or set of tests.On the other hand, the statement that Newtonian physics is true (or not true) is ambiguous in another sense. Lots of the physics that Isaac Newton came up with is still believed to be exactly correct while other parts are shown to be at best approximations and at worst, wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dear Ringo, This sentence cannot logically be ‘True’ because if it were ‘True’ it claims itself to be ‘False’; therefore this sentence is ‘False’. Really, can you site a case where two opposing things are both proven to be ‘True’ in exactly the same way at exactly the same time? Square circles maybe? What is thought to be ‘True’ today may be proven not true tomorrow. What is actually ‘True’ does not change; our understanding of what is ‘True’ changes.Besides that, there are ‘Absolute Truths’ and then there are ‘Contingent Truths’The LNC is an ‘Absolute Truth’ whereas Newtonian Physics is a ‘Contingent Truth’. Sorry, I do not understand what you are getting at here.Thanks for your comments,
JRTjr

Yup. "True' and "False" are ambiguous. You can't conclude absolute truth without assuming that absolute truth exists. Who said anything about exactness? Exactness also assumes absolute truth. You're assuming again that there "is" absolute truth. All we have is our understanding, so the idea that there "is" something that is "actually" true has no value.

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again. In all three of these sentences you are ‘assuming’ you are correct; which is what you are accusing me of doing.To tell me I am ‘wrong’ you have to use the vary ‘truth’ you are trying to deny.That is how I know there are ‘Truths’, because in trying to deny them you have to resort to using them; witch only lays credence to their existence and operation.Let me put is as simple as I can make it.You tell me that ‘True’ has no value; is that ‘True’ or ‘False’?If you do not know if it is ‘True’ or ‘False’ then why did you say it?Thank you again for your comments,
;-}
JRTjr

I'm questioning your "truth", not denying it.

Dear Ringo,I pray everything is going well with you. O’ I am sorry, if you had asked questions I would have tried my best to answer them; but you have been making statements like: Not only that, but, you seem to be vary emphatic about these statements. So, I am confused!!!Are you asking me if there is absolute truth; or telling me there is not??Are you asking me if 'there is any reality independent of thought'; or are you telling me that there is no reality independent of thought; and that we only think there is???Are you asking me if it is possible to know that absolute truth exists; or telling me that we cannot????Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr