Is there any such thing as an absolute?

Whats not sound?Is it not more parsimonious to suggest all realities coalesce into one. Therefore reality is reality.

I would say they are a part of this reality, yes. Right. I don't dispute this.
You've adopted terms (as I suggested) that makes this clear. You have "one reality" and "the possibility of multiple universes within that reality." Right?Lawrence explains it like this: If you have "the possibility of multiple realities" then they are all part of "one reality" and so, therefore... there is only one reality.Which is kind of saying the same thing... just a bit more confusing as it doesn't make the demarcation clear.Now... getting back to what I was talking about: As I talked about in Message 39 this is only a matter of definitions.Let's assume we have a reality with multiple universes.If we use your clear definitions... it's obvious that we have "one reality," but we could have a statement be true in one universe that is not true in another.
(I have no issues with this).If we use Lawrence's definitions... then you cannot explain this phenomenon. We would have one reality. But we would have an aspect of reality (one universe) where something is true... and another aspect of reality (another universe) where the same thing is false...
But, again according to Lawrence, an objective reality is a collection of statements which are true in that reality. So how can something be both true and false within Lawrence's "reality?"So... the only way 1.61803's quote that "A statement can not be true in one reality and false in another" is valid... is if you use your clear definitions of "reality" and "other universe."
That is... you're not having differences between realities (there's only 1 by definition)... you're just having differences between "other universes."
I didn't know (and, actually, still don't know...) if this is what he was intending.Because... by definitions that I'm used to... "other universe" is the same thing as "other reality"... and hence my confusion with the original statement.It's the overall concept that's important... not what we're naming each aspect.
For all I care, we could just as easily say there is only "one existence" and there's a possibility of "multiple realities" within that existence..

Well, yes. And I do agree with this point.
Like I said... I think it's a definitional problem. I explained it some more in my latest post to ProtoTypical in Message 47.In a nutshell, I seem to think that "different realities" and "parallel universes" are the same concept.Therefore... if you're trying to infer that "there is only one reality... in which there may be parallel universes that may each have their own true/false statements..." then I don't have an issue, and I simply misunderstood what you were trying to convey.But, if you're trying to infer that "parallel universes cannot have their own true/false statements that differ from each other..."
Then I take issue (and this is the concept to which I thought you were originally referring).

Cool. Maybe I'll start to believe in it myself
(I tend to pick a side that I think might be true... and then try to defend it and see how it goes from there...) I don't know.What do we mean by "known absolutely?" Let's say we mean something like a measurement:
Example: Abraham Lincoln's hat was 15" high (I just made that up, but let's roll with it...).Well, was it 15" high? Or 15.1"? 15.00000001? 14.9999999999999999999999998"?
Can we ever reach an "absolute accuracy?"Of course we can reach a "good enough" value. But "good enough" isn't the same as "absolute."Or maybe something more conceptual:
Example: Finding dinosaur bones means that dinosaurs lived in the past.Hmmmmm... I'm having a hard time finding something that's "not absolute" about that.
I guess there's always the cop-out: How do we know everything isn't an elaborate hoax? Last Thursdayism?
Feels pretty cheap to me. But is "any doubt at all" enough to not be "absolute?"Like Paul K says... I like my absolutes to be absolute? I suppose it's time for the why question: Why does it matter if anything is "absolute" or not?What's the difference between us knowing "absolutely" that dinosaurs existed vs. leaving some ridiculously-small doubt for Last Thursdayism?
What's the difference if Abe's hat is 14.9999999999999999999999998" or 15"?Or are we just discussing to see where it leads?
Is either mind-set dangerous?I would guess that an "absolute" mind-set would have a more difficult time being convinced of new evidence...
I would also suggest that "absolute" mind-sets seem to form key figures in religions as well (Absolutely-powerful/beneficial/knowing Gods...)To me... I don't see much in the way of advantages in saying something is "absolute" or not.
If "close enough" really is "close enough..." then who cares?I kind of think of it like the measurement thing... sure, when we cut a 2 x 4 we can measure 8'2".
And once it's cut... it's cut.
However... this is really only "close enough."
If you got right down to it with a microscopic measuring device at some point you would see the actual molecules/atoms vibrating around near the edges. This means there isn't an "absolute value" of the length in any way. It's always a varying, changing value... even after it's cut!. It just depends where your "enough" is for "close enough."What if all of reality is like this on some level? What if every property of every observation (on some fundamental minute scale...) is just vibrating around a few states? Would it be better to embrace the fuzziness of reality? Or would it be better to try and force our "good enough" observations into "absolutes?"I do suppose "absolutes" would be a lot easier and cleaner. That's something to aim for, maybe?

I would suggest that there is two ways to view absolutes. On one hand there is a functional absolute. This is where we live everyday. I would feel comfortable say we are absolutely certain that the sun is fusing hydrogen into heavier elements. So many scientists have worked on this question and have produced such convincing arguments that I feel it safe to function as if it is absolutely true.I don't see that this means that we have to hold on to that theory dogmatically, and reject any evidence that may contradict such a position. It means that we function in on a day to day basis as if it is absolute (not that this particular issue comes into play in our daily lives very often).Now, on the other hand, there is a philosophical absolute. This is what allows us to be skeptical and to acknowledge that our absolute position may be wrong. However, if we live here, we can never be sure about anything and everything becomes relative; that is no way to live. Or conversely, if we exclude this philosophical recognition that our absolute position could be wrong, we live as if our absolute position is absolute and we become dogmatic and inflexible. So ... for a question like "Is there a god?" I can personally say "Yes, there is absolutely is a god." while still recognizing that I could very well be wrong. However, I live as if it is an absolute certainty. However, when asked "Is my characterization of God the absolute correct characterization of what God is like?" Now my confidence level begins to fall somewhat and I begin to use answers like "I believe ...", "According to what I understand ..." etc. But I still may live like my understanding is absolutely correct.So I agree that doubt should have, maybe not a vanishing point, but a place where we can live like it is absolute, even though we should always be wiling to question our position.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

I probably shouldn't have used math as an example because I am not ready to defend it. However, there is a whole philosophy of mathematics with several different perspectives. I don't think it is as simple as how we define the terms. Perhaps it is that mathematics is descriptive of systems in the universe, and it is those systems that I am really referring to. I will have to give it some thought, but I can retract the whole line of thinking since it is kind of irrelevant to my point anyway. OK. But the issue is not the simple logic, it is the assumptions we have made in forming our logical statement. ALL hats are green? Understand you mean this as a simple example, but again, the problem is not the logic but the assumptions that come with it. But ... did you really define reality?HBD

Bingo.

However, there is an "absolute" standard (at least for the meter) defined by some arbitrary distance. All measurement devices need to trace back to that standard. This illustrates the actual idea of absolutes, where the idea of an absolute is contrasted to a relative standard. For example, if I bring my homemade tape measure to measure Lincoln's hat and said it was 13" and you brought your homemade tape measure and declared it to be 16" who would be right? We need to compare our measurements - that is our tape measures - to the standard. Each of us having our own standard for an inch is totally worthless when trying to agree on the height of Lincoln's hat.But, the discussion about absolutes usually revolves around moral issues rather than the accuracy of measured values. But like measured values we do need some kind of standard, do we not? Can we all measure moral issues with our own tape measure? If so, then how do we know who is right? Do we choose an arbitrary measure? Is there some standard that applies to all humans regardless of what you or I think? Just like the standard for the meter defines that length of measurement.This is what I suggest cannot be known with absolute certainty. How do I know that my standard is THE right standard? I don't, but the answer to that does not depend on what others think the standard is, but it depends on what the standard actually is or how the standard is defined.The other point to this is that I think most of us live as if the standard we have is THE absolute standard. Rather than reiterate all of it, see Message 50 for my take on this. I would say that we live with many "functional" absolutes, while still maintaining that our position could possibly be wrong. Isn't that usually where the problem lies - when one says that they know that their position is absolutely the right one and there is no way they could possibly be wrong? So is the problem actually that there IS a standard is it what that standard is?HBD

Exactly.If we accept the assumptions (work within "the system" we've defined with assumptions) then we can have absolutes within that system. We just have to remember that they depend upon certain assumptions.The other point to remember is that all observations of reality require some sort of assumption. Either the assumption that "all hats are green" (or some other, more repeatable observation like "the force of gravity comes from objects with mass.")... or the assumption that "an objective reality exists." They are assumptions and we need to remember that any "absolutes" we derive within our system (our "ideas/concepts about reality") rely on these assumptions. They may very well be assumptions that have never, ever been shown to be false... but our currently limited resources do not allow us yet to jump from "never, ever been shown to be false" to "absolutely, always true." Of course not. That's how we know that it's not absolute when working "outside" of the system (taking observations from reality... some hats are actually red).
However, if we work "within" the system... taking our knowledge from the data provided by the example itself (ie. "All hats are green"). Then we certainly can have "absolutes."
For a (horrible) example: Say, locking a man in a single room his entire life where there are 2 hats and they are both green.The point was to show how we can create absolute certainty by creating an entire scenario by defining it into existence.For (possibly) a less confusing example:
Let's say I imagine a story. For the sake of brevity let's assume I'm a horrible plagiarist and created the story of the three little pigs.
I can absolutely say that there are 3 pigs in my story.
Because I created the story, I defined it, and I made the rules.
This says nothing about reality. But within the system I created (the system I "defined")... there are absolutes.Extending this example... as long as we accept the assumptions about reality to create a defined system... then we can claim absolutes within that system.
Whether or not that system is 'absolutely true about reality' will entirely depend on those assumptions being true to reality or not (possibly something we can never know).But "absolutely true within reality" isn't the same as "absolutely true within the story Stile created."The question was simply "Is there any such thing as an absolute."
This doesn't imply within reality so I made the clarification.If the point is that something must be absolute "within everything" in order to actually be absolute... then it is trivially easy to show that this is impossible. For anything that you can claim to be absolute "within reality" I can simply make something up that is the opposite "within Stile's imagination" and therefore it isn't absolute "within everything."Therefore... there are classifications."Systems we define" is a classification where we can know if anything is absolute or not as we can refer to the definitions. If the definitions are clear enough, and our subject is also clear enough... then we can identify certain absolutes within the system.
"Reality" is a classification where we cannot know if anything can be absolute or not as we are not currently privy to the definitions for reality.We can, however, build our own "systems we define" about reality (like objective science) and then make absolute statements within those systems... but we can never make the jump that these observations are "absolute representations of reality" without knowing the exact definitions for reality.

I totally agree.Within "the system of measurements" that we have defined... we have defined an "absolute" (theoretical) standard for the meter.
Therefore... as long as we're working within the system we can compare things to this absolute value.Of course, because atoms and moleclues vibrate... we'll never actually have anything that is "absolutely" 1 meter (or any specific length).
At some minute level... it will be constantly varying it's length between so many pico-meters and so many other pico-meters.This means nothing when we cut a 7-foot long piece of lumber to build a house.
It does, however, mean quite a bit when we try to fit so many transistors into a computer chip. At some point, the transistors get so small that they no longer hold their "transistor" shape... and stop functioning as desired. This isn't an issue with being able to cut them to the size we need... this is an issue with our assumption that "a size" can actually exist within reality in the first place. It can't. Even the 7-foot long piece of lumber is varying it's "size" on the level of pico-meters. This is just irrelevant when building a house.Within the system (building a house)... the absolutes can be used to compare to the standard.
Outside the system (building a transistor)... the absolutes are no longer valid. Therefore... are they not "absolutes" then? The answer is that they were never absolutes "for reality." But they certainly are absolutes within the system (example: building a house). It can, yes. But it includes the same trouble. If we understand the definitions for the system and the definitions of the subject well enough... then we can make absolute statements. If we do not... then we cannot. If we want to be able to compare our answers... then yes, we do. Yes, we can. We just cannot compare our answers unless we agree to a single standard.
Same with the measuring tape.Your 13" hat-measurement will work fine for you putting together your own replica of Lincoln's hat (assuming your system is linear-enough... )My 16" hat-mearsurement will work fine for me putting together my own replica of Lincoln's hat.But, obviously... we will have much confusion when talking to each other because our standards are different.
Therefore... we created "an arbitrary definition" for standard measurement... the meter.This doesn't force "the meter" to become some sort of absolute item existing in reality. It simply provides us with a theoretical standard from which we can make absolute comparisons as long as we work within that system.So... same with morality.Your subjective answers will work fine for you in your system.
My subjective answers will work fine for me in my system.But... if we want to compare our answers... we'll have to agree to some "arbitrary definition" for standard measurement.If we do find some standard to agree upon. This doesn't force that standard to become some absolute standard of morality according to reality. It simply provides us with a theoretical standard from which we can make absolute comparisons as long as we work within that system. Maybe. Can we ever know it? I don't think so.Just like the meter? The meter doesn't "apply to all humans regardless of what you or I think." The only reason the meter applies to us is precisely because "you and I" have decided to think that it applies to us! Humans invented "the meter" as much as they invented "the inch." The two standards (as you stated in your first sentence...) were defined arbitrarily. The world has just adopted the meter as a universal standard in order to make universal comparisons much easier. There's nothing in reality that says "a meter exists and it is this long!" It is only humans who defined that a meter exists... and they defined how long it is.Is there some measurement of length that applies to all humans regardless of what you or I think?Maybe. Can we ever know it? I don't think so.
But... I can absolutely tell you that "the meter" is not a measurement of length that applies to all humans regardless of what you or I think!
"The meter" only applies to those humans who think of it! This is very true.It is true for morality. (Example: does The Bible define morality? Or do people get to say what's hurting them vs. helping them?)
And it is true for "the meter." (Example: is "the meter" THE right standard? Or "the inch?") Very true again.
But don't worry... nobody knows
Or, at least... nobody's been able to show that they know...
For morality, and for "the meter." Correct again.
"Functional" absolutes is a very good term, and I completely agree with your definition. Absolutely. We have been taught (by evolution? socially? culture?... doesn't matter) that "being wrong" is a negative thing. Therefore, many people have a very hard time simply admitting they can be wrong. Even though everyone knows that "we're all human" and "humans are quite capable of being wrong."Science (and objectivity) change their stance when new information comes along. There's nothing positive or negative about it... it's just how it works. This is much more healthy for a mind that craves honesty. The problem is that we don't know the definitions for reality. Therefore... we cannot know if there is a standard for reality.
Then... people want to live their lives according to standards... and they want to feel secure that these standards are "valid."So... we have Grug with standard A and Lug with standard B.
Grug doesn't like that Lug does things differently... so he kills him. Problem solved. Everything is back to standard A.We have evolved to the point to understand that this is wrong.
We have not yet evolved to the point to understand that standard A and standard B are both not absolutes.So... our desire to "kill Lug" (remove standard B) remains while our ability to actually do so is heavily restricted.We have options: "Grow a set" and recognize that our standard A may not be as "absolute" as we originally thought... or fight the system and get a long as best we can.Your results may vary

Enquiring minds want to know ...or at least look. I believe that the truth shall set us free. I believe that this is an absolute truth. That knowing what is true is better than not knowing.

I don't see a problem with saying, given what we know today, this is absolutely the case.Do you think that logic can be absolute? Can we not say that, given such and such inputs, our logical deductions can be absolutely true? I see that this comes back to knowing all of the inputs but is the process absolutely reliable? Is our logic not capable of revealing the truth? It seems to me that we all think that it is.

Taking this back into the realm of faith/belief....I believe that Gods reality is an unchangeable absolute, but due to the allowance of satan and alternate "reality" or perception we are allowed to make up opposites.This of course was initially made possible by God having allowed free will.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Relative truth sets us relatively free. If there was absoulte truth, would it set us absolutely free? What is absolute freedom?

As good a reason as any. Could be. Maybe not. I agree with this, for most things, anyway. Are you trying to say that this part is absolute as well?
I think this is a valid "life-goal" or "personal priority" or whatever you'd like to call it.
But to call it an absolute truth? I think that might be pushing it. The hint is in the word "better." If you say something is "better"... what are you judging it against?It may very well be an absolute truth/goal for you and your life.
But there are many people where knowing certain experiences is not better than not knowing them.An easy example would be people who are victimized... I'm sure there are people who suffer from PTSD who would rather not know some of the experiences that they know.Or... let's say you have the opportunity to know what all insects around the world are thinking at all times. Would you want such a gift?
What if you accepted and the information overload was so much it put you into a comatose state attempting to process it?
(I'm just making stuff up here... attempting to play devil's advocate)To me, it seems obvious that this is a subjective decision you're making. Which is fine. Personally, I think subjective decisions are more meaningful than absolute or objective decisions.For example:
Let's say God comes down from heaven and tells all people "I am your God, and I created you to love one another. That is your absolute purpose. Now go and do so, already!!"What is more meaningful? The person who loves other people because it is an absolute mandate (God said so)? Or the person who loves other people because they personally decide to do so?So, although I agree that the "search for truth" is a noble effort. I don't think it's absolute.
But, I still think it's better to choose to follow this goal than to do so because you think it's absolute in some way.