|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any such thing as an absolute? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I'm still here - though I'm not absolutely sure of that - whether God exists or not. Complain about Him if you must...but you wouldn't even have that option were it not for Him. Maybe God gave you the choice to accept Him or maybe He forced you to "choose" what you had for breakfast. You don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If we're going to attempt to make absolute statements... the scope they encompass needs to be clarified. I appreciate the need for precise language which is really what I am looking for. It is revealing to deconstruct sentences and identify all of the predicates that they assume. It's a wonder that we can communicate at all with out attaching an end user agreement to every statement. Language falls way short of thought. If the goal is to understand the nature of things then knowing the truth is always better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Does that make sense? No. I understand what you are saying but I don't see any rational basis for your assumptions and projections. The idea of god seems to be the result of our search for absolutes. Its the carrot that we imagine on the end of the stick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If we have know way of knowing what the absolute qualities are what's the point of insisting that there "are" absolute qualities? Well...what's the point of anything? What's the point of insisting that there is no way of knowing? I say that the point is so that we might know because knowing is better than not knowing. Also, I am not insisting. I am asking what you think so as to improve my perception of the idea. If I can add your perspective to mine then I can improve my picture. If the truth is better then it follows that being closer to the truth is better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: But it does mean that no observer can know what those absolute qualities are - and a group of observers can only approximate what those qualities are. If we have know way of knowing what the absolute qualities are what's the point of insisting that there "are" absolute qualities? In order to maintain that some approximations are better than others perhaps?
Verisimilitude is a reasonably widespread concept in the philosophy of science. Even if you cannot ever achieve truth, even if you cannot know what "truth" is, that doesn't stop some answers being better approximations to it than others. If you are going to talk about "approximations" you need to decide what it is you are approximating...... Right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Omnivorous writes: Speaking for myself and not ringo, I'd say choices are an illusion. Maybe they are.I'm not saying I know that they're not. I'm saying I don't know. And, I'm also saying... that I don't think you know either An executive construct conditioned by its unique intersection of genetics and circumstance: time, place, culture, the particulars of family structure and the personalities of its members, nutrition, chance encounters with disease vectors and mentors...and the array of choices is equally conditioned and pared by all of the above as well as larger historical, geological and astronomical sets. Yes, our lives are full of information and experiences.How does that, specifically, negate having a choice? So what part of all that is willed? I don't know... I'm not saying it definitely is. But you seem to be saying it definitely isn't... by implying that it isn't? That isn't enough for me to agree.
How much sense does it make to say that this defined, determined construct of a creature, presented a limited set of stimuli, responds to one most strongly and thus "chooses" Coke over Pepsi? A lot of sense. Because of the varying differences. There are averages and majorities and such for predicting human behaviour. But even the best predictions are still never accurate enough to say we are not making a choice. For your Coke and Pepsi example... in general most people do not always choose Coke or Pepsi. They may have a slight preference but still pick differently, sometimes even under the same circumstances. Is that because the stimuli are somehow changing and people are forced to pick differently?Or is that because people are making fickle decisions about a fickle product but still making independent choices each time? I don't know.But... so far you haven't shown that it's even likely to be "an illusion." You've only shown that it could be an illusion. Well... I agree. It could be. Also... it might not be.
Free will should be made of sterner stuff. Perhaps when we are like gods we will discover it. I do agree with this, and it is nicely poetic, too.But reality doesn't care if things are poetic to us, or if we are happy with the conclusions. What if free will isn't made of sterner stuff? What if it's pretty loose and shitty? Does that mean it's not free will anymore just because it's not nicely poetic? I'm not ready to give up on it just because you say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1529 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes: I'd say choices are an illusion. I think it probably would be best (for clairty sake) when we discuss things likefree will on EVC we make sure to say it is a given that our sentient concious mind is operating under the influence of a googleplex of unseen parameters that lead up to a choice. For simplicity sake when I refer to free will I am talking about the kind that describes me taking a left or a right on a given street. We do have choices and we do select from them every waking hour of our lives. This ability to do so is what I call my free will. Edited by 1.61803, : for clarity sake* added"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
It's a safety device, to remind us that we're never "there"; we're still learning.
What's the point of insisting that there is no way of knowing? ProtoTypical writes:
That's what I'm saying: you can improve your picture but you can't (or shouldn't) "finish" it. If I can add your perspective to mine then I can improve my picture. What pisses me off is people saying something is absolute when they really mean "pretty close".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Since we wouldn't "choose" a bad option over a good option, it isn't really a choice, is it? Right. I can see that. But... if "good" and "bad" are subjective and relative, and we are actually the ones who decide what is "good for us" and what is "bad for us"... Doesn't this make things a bit more complicated than you seem to be implying? If we aren't the ones deciding what's good and bad... who (or what) is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
"Better" approximations are more precise approximations, not necessarily more accurate approximations. If you are going to talk about "approximations" you need to decide what it is you are approximating...... Right? If we're shooting at a target in the dark, we can tell by feel how closely our shots are grouped but we can't feel how close they are to the bullseye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I think I was responding to Phat's notion that God gives us our choices - e.g. heaven or hell. My point was and is that if we don't think both choices are viable He isn't really giving us a choice at all.
If we aren't the ones deciding what's good and bad... who (or what) is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: "Better" approximations are more precise approximations, not necessarily more accurate approximations. My desk is 1.7543698765423410981666 centimeters long My desk is about a meter and a half long. One of these statements is highly precise but a very poor approximation. The other statement is very approximate but far more accurate. Which of the two statements is the better approximation? Being roughly accurate trumps being precisely wrong.It's accuracy that we should be aiming for. Without it precision is really rather worthless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Not necessarily, as I said. Note my example of shooting in the dark: When you don't know how accurate you are it's better to be precise; you can make a precise approximation more accurate but one "accurate" data point might just be a fluke.
Being roughly accurate trumps being precisely wrong. Straggler writes:
On the contrary, it's usefulness that we should be aiming for. Precision can be adjusted toward usefulness.
It's accuracy that we should be aiming for. Without it precision is really rather worthless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Biblical creationists make highly precise calculations about the age of the Earth. Down to the number of days in some cases.
Science tells us an age of the Earth that is nowhere near as precise as that. Which is the better approximation?
Ringo writes: Precision can be adjusted toward usefulness. Only if it is accurate. Being ever more precisely wrong is entirely pointless. Being ever more precise is only of value if combined with a degree of accuracy.
Ringo writes: On the contrary, it's usefulness that we should be aiming for. More accurate theories are more useful...... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
The one that's more useful.
Biblical creationists make highly precise calculations about the age of the Earth. Down to the number of days in some cases.Science tells us an age of the Earth that is nowhere near as precise as that. Which is the better approximation? Straggler writes:
No. ringo writes:
Only if it is accurate. Precision can be adjusted toward usefulness. If your shots are tightly grouped but three inches to the right of the bullseye, you only need to make a small adjustment in your sights to make your precise shots more accurate. On the other hand, if your shots are all over the target there's no easy way to improve either your precision or your accuracy.
Straggler writes:
You seem to be thinking of accuracy in terms of proximity to "The Absolute Truth". I'm suggesting that we should think of accuracy entirely in terms of usefulness. A map is accurate if it gets you where you want to go, even if it depicts the earth as a plane instead of a dodecahedron.
More accurate theories are more useful......
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024