What are the absolutes

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This means that it is intrinsically impossible for science and empirical observation to falsify anything at all.

So your earlier statement: "those empirical theories which cannot be falsified because it is intrinsically impossible to gather the required evidence" becomes in the context to which you just switched rather meaningless.

Still for all practical purposes you will prepare when the weatherman warns for a major storm, but you won't prepare for an invasion of purple unicorns, when announced through some obscure media.

[David Quinn]

Diebert wrote:

DQ: An example of the former would be, "Three-headed, purple unicorns used to live in the universe that existed before the big bang". It is impossible for us to go back before the last big bang and verify whether this statement is true or not, and so, for all intents and purposes, it is intrinsically unfalsifiable.

DvR: It's falsifiable because it could be proven that this (currently speculative) universe cannot exist.

Well, not really, because as you and I have agreed, science cannot disprove anything with any certainty. Even if we did manage to arrive at a well-supported theory that appears to disprove the idea of universes existing previously to the big bang, we have no way of determining its worth in an ultimate sense. For the evidence which supports the theory could well be an illusion of some kind.

If the existence of such universe could be proven, then the door is open to prove or disprove at least in theory more attributes of such construct, like life processes. Why are you so sure this kind of research is impossible in the future?

The research will be possible, but, as with any scientific research, it won't lead to real knowledge of any kind.

DQ: It can neither be affirmed nor falsified, neither proved nor disproved. Because of this, it cannot have the status of an absolute truth. Rather, it is likely to remain for all eternity as unresolved speculation.

DvR: Likely for all eternity? You mean you're not absolutely certain it will remain unresolved? This contradicts the first sentence (it can neither be affirmed nor falsified).

I was speaking from the point of view that it might be possible one day for us to somehow go back to the previous universe and observe the unicorns there. In doing so, I am pushing aside the deeper truth that we will never know whether these observed unicorns are not hallucinations of some kind.

If you'd be absolutely certain however, you'd have given its uncertainty a status of absolute truth, based on what?

It's based on the reality that we have no means of dismissing the possibility that observed phenomenona are hallucinations of some kind. It is inherently impossible for us to get around this, and, thus, the uncertainty will always be present, in all possible worlds.

-

[David Quinn]

Diebert,

DQ: This means that it is intrinsically impossible for science and empirical observation to falsify anything at all.

DvR: So your earlier statement: "those empirical theories which cannot be falsified because it is intrinsically impossible to gather the required evidence" becomes in the context to which you just switched rather meaningless.

It does, yes. But I wanted to start off by making the distinction between those empirical theories which can easily be "disproven", such as "there are unicorns on Mars", and those that may well be impossible to "disprove", such as "there were unicorns in the previous universe". It was just a way of extending the good point you were making to Hades.

Still for all practical purposes you will prepare when the weatherman warns for a major storm, but you won't prepare for an invasion of purple unicorns, when announced through some obscure media.

That's right. As far as practical matters are concerned (which always involves empirical theorizing), one needs to know how to weigh the empirical evidence and form sensible conclusions. That side of things doesn't change.

-

[Dan Rowden]

But I wanted to start off by making the distinction between those empirical theories which can easily be "disproven", such as "there are unicorns on Mars", and those that may well be impossible to "disprove", such as "there were unicorns in the previous universe". It was just a way of extending the good point you were making to Hades.

Dave, this is sloppy. We can't ever hope to disprove there are no Unicorns on Earth and yet you assert it to be easily disproven that there are no Unicorns on Mars? I mean, I see no difference whatsoever in the ultimate scope for proof of either proposition you mention above. Both speak to the limitations of induction - period. The "distinction" you try to assert doesn't exist.


Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

Agreed, the distinction doesn't exist. But I wanted to treat the issue with Hade's conventional, empiricist perspective in mind.

Diebert had said:

Hades: Somethings aren't falsifiable, this doesn't make them true at all.

Diebert: There's a difference between something which isn't currently falsifiable (life on Venus, unicorns) and something which is never to be falsified in all universes under all conditions in all times, because of a more fundamental constrain in how our ability for any kind of knowledge works.

I wanted to extend Diebert's point by presenting a more obvious example of an empirical theory which is seemingly impossible to falsify - namely, that unicorns existed in a previous universe. This takes the "currently unfalsifiable" bit out of the equation and turns the empirical theory into one that almost reaches the status of a timelessly unfalsifiable theory.

But yes, there is essentially no difference between the two. They are both intrinsically unfalsifiable. However, in my experience, the conventional, empiricist mentality is not familiar with this deeper perspective.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I wanted to extend Diebert's point by presenting a more obvious example of an empirical theory which is seemingly impossible to falsify - namely, that unicorns existed in a previous universe. This takes the "currently unfalsifiable" bit out of the equation and turns the empirical theory into one that almost reaches the status of a timelessly unfalsifiable theory.

Indeed my initial use of the word "currently" was incomplete in the sense that also any past or future empirical falsifications, or even a seeming inability to falsify in such manner, cannot provide hundred percent certainty about our perceived reality either.

As far as practical matters are concerned (which always involves empirical theorizing), one needs to know how to weigh the empirical evidence and form sensible conclusions. That side of things doesn't change.

It's clearly easy to stray from such sensible conclusions toward a whole materialistic worldview of 'certainties' that makes any search for absolutes obsolete.

[williamashley]

Ok, so give it to me straight

what are the absolute truths, and how do you know they are true

stuff happens until it doesn't.

Regardless of what happens it happens at that moment.

We can do anything we would like as long as we desire it, however, at times we do not get what we want.

If we do not desire we feel no pain but our sense of purpose is fullfilled.

What are you trying to do with your life,

can you accept being a slave to anothers plan?

Is ife anything but that.

We can see by lifting our hand we have some control by closing our eyes and seeing the stars or sea. We have it within us, but what about flying or levitating why so something occur at will and others do not??

The unmistakable law, but for something that we have done is perhaps new to us or a new boundryto our previous limitation.

Quantum uncertainty may say that anything is posible but with anything our capacity to control is diminished by uncertainty.

Ultimatey it reduces to inclination and occurance.

It is your choice how to live your life, whether that be to be socially integrated or segregated or victimized.

Either we are a killer, a martyr, a lamb, or the shroud. Either we force others to our will, we resist with our own destruction, we accept and are slaughtered or that which is the alpha omega unknown.

Stimulus response and symbolic interactors define a logical model.

True love is the way but are we in denile of mutual love or must we always specialize? what are we trying to accomplish, is this life truely hell and jainism is a concept to end suffering and attain our jiva's freedom?

All I know is that my desires are crushed but I have acceptance and complaicency. It is mearly tradition of experience.. only desire guides us, if we did not have desire we would be free.

[LooF]

"unicorns exist"

can that be false?

"statement" can be false

what can not be false?

[Rhett]

.

We can see by lifting our hand we have some control by closing our eyes and seeing the stars or sea. We have it within us, but what about flying or levitating why so something occur at will and others do not??

Sometimes the notion "lift hand" occurs and then "the hand" lifts.
Sometimes "the hand" simply lifts.

The former occurrence may be deemed 'willed', but there is no real difference in their nature.

.