If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Dear Catholic Scientist,Thank you for your comments. Of course the ‘whole burger’ is ‘On the Plate’ but that does not correlate to a ‘column of Air ‘Above’ the plate’ being considered as ‘On the Plate’ since the ‘column of air’ is not a solid object. The Hamburger is a solid object but a ‘column of air’ is not.I never even suggested that only the first layer of a ‘solid object’ was what was actually ‘on the Plate’. I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Ringo: Are you going to flat out deny that the ‘law of non-contradiction’ is an ‘Absolute Truth’????See, what you seem to have missed is that I have presented the evidence that ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist; and it is Ringo, not I, who has gone down the rabbit hole of denying what is so clearly evident.Thanks for your thought, hope to hear from you again soon.God Bless,
JRTjr

Dear Pressie,Thank you for your comments, hope you enjoy the exchange. Well, tell us wise sage: what is the difference between an atomic weight and the Number corresponding to the atomic weight??We poor, blind, dumb, fouls would love to know._____________________________________________Dear Pressie,Please, forgive me for my outburst.Whether or not I am right, this is not the response I should have given. I apologies. P.s. I placed this here because I did not know where else to put it.God Bless,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Add Apology

The column of air is also on the plate. That's one of the reasons why if you weigh the plate at sea level it will be heavier than if you weigh it on top of a mountain. On the mountain, there is a shorter column of air pushing down on the plate so it weighs less. There is literally more air ON the plate at sea level. You said:

quote:

---

By the way, what I fined ‘silly’ is the argument that asking someone if they have eaten everything on their plate would be construed to include any item not actually touching the top surface of the plate itself.

---

Since the top bun of a hamburger is not touching the top surface of the plate, itself, then according to the above it would not be on the plate.But you still haven't really acknowledge the point: When someone says "everything", they don't necessarily mean "absolutely everything". The point is shown by the example that eating "everything" on your plate does not mean literally and absolutely every single thing that is on the plate, like the air molecules that are touching the surface of it.Can you acknowledge this simple point? Sure. Light exists as both a wave and a particle and we have Brownian Motion in a deterministic universe. These two things contradict themselves and yet, as far as we know, they are both true.Also, the phrase: "This statement is false." can't even have a truth value assigned to it, so the Law of non-contradiction can't be applied to it.So there's a few examples where the LNC is not true and therefore, it isn't absolutely true.Also, I already explained that the LNC is just a stupid tautology. "A red thing is red" is just as impressive. Is that really all you were talking about with absolute truths? That you can come up with tautologies?

quote:

---

Its like a tautology. The problem isn't that they aren't true, they just don't really tell us anything. That's what is meant by being trivial.

​

The fact that something is itself and not something else is not some kind of profound insight, its trivially true. That it is the only example of an absolute truth that you can come up with, tells me that absolute truths are a pipe dream.

---

. Seriously, when you started talking about "absolute truth", were you really just talking about tautologies?If you, instead, would have said that tautologies exist, then you wouldn't have had an argument.

Nitrogen has the Atomic Number 7, but its Atomic Weight is 14.007.
Oxygen has the Atomic Number 8, but its Atomic Weight is 15.999.
Hydrogen has the Atomic Number 1, but its Atomic Weight is 1.008.

Dear NoNukes,Great hearing from you, hope you stay and chat awhile. Don’t blame me, take it up with Wikipedia.org. If you can prove that the atomic weight of those three elements is wrong then I’m more than willing to accept the changes. However, as you state such things are not important for the discussion. Not so, I site the Number that corresponds to the Atomic Weight Hope this clears things up.God Bless,
JRTjr

'Reality exists' is the contention. I have no doubt that you can phrase it as a tautology.Reality is that thing that impacts upon my awareness.Our words are symbols for the things that we wish to represent. The thing itself requires no symbol. Tautologies are the result of symbols and not the result of the thing itself. Falibilism is the toothpick that we use to keep our eyes open. The fact that it consistently works is sufficient evidence that there is a reality that we can learn about. Falibilism recognizes that the evidence can change. In order to do so it must also recognize that there is such a thing as evidence and truth and everything else. The observer consists of the mind, which is a processing unit, and it's senses, which input information. There is no such thing as an observer without senses. The observer is the one who senses. I don't need you to agree. You manifest enough for me to interact with. From my perspective, something is replying to my thoughts. This equates to reality from my perspective. If you are a machine or an alien or a figment of my imagination makes no difference to the point that your manifestations, at least, exist for me to perceive. (Even if they are self generated they are still generated.) It has to do with the nature of light.While it is true that we have perceptions of things that do not exist this can only be known because we have perceptions of things that do exist.The physiological results of drinking the water are the reality that we are talking about. When I drink and my thirst is quenched it doesn't matter if it all takes place in the context of some higher unknown reality. The observer doesn't get the results without drinking the water. The quenched thirst is equal to reality as far as the observer is concerned.

You sound like the guy in black.

Wikipedia does not report the values you listed. You misread them.I'm not going to go so far as to offer proof as to what the atomic weight of Carbon is. What I will say is that according to Wikipedia, the atomic weight for Carbon is just a shade over 12.Carbon - Wikipedia"Standard atomic weight 12.011"Nitrogen - WikipediaThe atomic weight of Nitrogen is a shade over 14 g/mol. You can look up the remaining values. Yes it does. Rather than look this stuff up, you want to compound your error. If I have to work this hard to get you to acknowledge even the simplest error, how hard will the rest of this discussion be?

The atomic number is an integer that is equal to the number of protons in a nucleus.The atomic weight is the weighted average of the weights of the atomic nuclei as they occur in nature where said weight is measured in amu. The weight of a single atom in amu is approximately the sum of the number of protons and neutrons.

How do you absolutely know that any of your perceptions relate to things that do exist? You can't absolutely know that. That's the problem you face. Not if all physical reality, including bodily sensation, is but an illusion created by the mind. If the illusion of physical reality external to one's mind is so perfect and complete as to be indistinguishable from that reality actually existing then to all practical intents and purposes you might as well treat it as real (this was Descartes conclusion).But the problem for absolutists is that you still cannot absolutely know that any of it does absolutely exist.

It shows up in many different ways and looks different from every perspective but there is ultimately only one truth. Any subsequent revelations will necessarily be based on and derived from it. If reality absolutely exists then we would perceive it in the exact same way that we do now. This was my point about things not being able to be more real. If the illusion is indistinguishable from the reality then it is not an illusion.

That's your perception. It doesn't seem to agree with the collective pereption in this thread, so it isn't objective, much less absolute.

Since everybody but you seems to know, you must be using the royal "we". The difference between "weight" and "number" is that weight can be expressed as a number but every number doesn't necesarily refer to a weight.

From a practical point of view one may as well treat them identically.From an absolute truth perspective however there is clearly a difference.It's the difference between an objective physical reality that does exist and a dream or other such mental construct that is so convincing as to be unable to be distinguished by the subject.

An 'illusion' that can't be distinguished from reality by ANY observer can't really be called an illusion can it? While it seems reasonable to imagine some higher reality is this an infinite option? There is a finite amount of information regarding any particular event at any point in time. The absolute truth is the totality of that information.