logical proof of causality without empirical?

[Ataraxia]

Pincho,if that response is to my post I'd just like to point out I wasn't trying to refute one statement with the other but rather use 2 paralell examples.

[Jamesh]

Right, so as long as we qualify a statement with "in my experience, or what I consider good qualities" or something similar then it will always be absolutely true

No, no, no.

The only absolute truths are those that can be applied to all things. Other than that, any relationship between two defined things and reality, is subjective.

Absolute truths are not "as subjective", in the same manner as self-to-a-particular-situation is - because whatever the subject being experienced actually is, then absolute truths will always remain logically applicable to that subject in question.

The subjectivity of absolute truths, is a reality, but the degree of subjectivity versus the degree of objective or absolute truth, is relative to the degree of quality of consciousness of the subject, at any point of time. Quality of consciousness is not just awareness, as a junkie can be quite aware in unusual ways. Awareness is just consciousness of there being an external, and in the case of a junkie or imbecile, such awareness is not filtered by logic. Quality of consciousness is created and enhanced by the act of defining reality, but only where such defining is logically coherent. Absolute truths create the basis for logical coherency of that which is in one's memories, and it is what is in one's memory that allows one to be more conscious.

Here is a definition of objective truth I just a-piorised.

"Objective truth is that which is will be assessed as truth by any form of observer that applies fundamental logic to the situation. In the absence of any form of observer, absolute truth becomes that which would by necessity occur and 'be'. Observer or no observer, absolute truth represents that which would be true in all possible worlds, regardless of the laws that applied to the construction of that universe"

Interesting, this definition is based on information provided to me by the QRS, it is essentially what they say, so therefore, from my perspective, it is based on empirical data.

[Ataraxia]

.....

[Ataraxia]

Right, so as long as we qualify a statement with "in my experience, or what I consider good qualities" or something similar then it will always be absolutely true

No, no, no.

The only absolute truths are those that can be applied to all things.

I didn't say it was an absolute truth as in a universal-I said the (statement) is absolutely true if I add the "in my experience"

"In my experience beer tastes better than vodka"
or
"There appears to be , at the moment of typing this , a cup on my desk " are absolutely true statements.

The subjectivity of absolute truths, is a reality, but the degree of subjectivity versus the degree of objective or absolute truth, is relative to the degree of quality of consciousness of the subject, at any point of time. Quality of consciousness is not just awareness, as a junkie can be quite aware in unusual ways. Awareness is just consciousness of there being an external, and in the case of a junkie or imbecile, such awareness is not filtered by logic. Quality of consciousness is created and enhanced by the act of defining reality, but only where such defining is logically coherent.

ok,I have no argument there.

Interesting, this definition is based on information provided to me by the QRS, it is essentially what they say, so therefore, from my perspective, it is based on empirical data.

hehe.

[Kevin Solway]

Therefore, opinions personally qualified and observations of the world have the same truth value.ie Absolute.

They are certainly absolutes, but I personally reserve the word "Absolute", with the capital "A", for the Infinite, or the Totality.

While the best football player depends on what I personally remember and consider "best", the Absolute doesn't depend on my personal values, memories, or experiences.

[David Quinn]

Contradictions such as "objective perspective" and "married bachelor" are absolute, in that there is no possibility of these things appearing anywhere, at any time.

Edit;

yet the definitions themselves only exist mentally, as you think of them.

They are appearances themselves, that come and go.

That is true. But at the same time, the truths to which these momentary appearances point are universal and timeless.

For example, it doesn't matter if the concept of an objective perspective comes or goes, or if it is being experienced by anyone or not, the impossibility of an objective perspective arising anywhere, at any time, is always in force.

-

[average]

That is true. But at the same time, the truths to which these momentary appearances point are universal and timeless.

For example, it doesn't matter if the concept of an objective perspective comes or goes, or if it is being experienced by anyone or not, the impossibility of an objective perspective arising anywhere, at any time, is always in force.

I knew you were going to say that.

I'm suspicious of this idea of 'pointing to' and also suspicious of the nature of that which is being referred to, by these transient appearances that are ideas.

I'll have to give this some more thought...when I have time.

[HYPNOSIS]

So, why can't we just walk around naked? absolute truth & absolute statement.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,if that response is to my post I'd just like to point out I wasn't trying to refute one statement with the other but rather use 2 paralell examples.

No I meant Kevin Solways reply did not adhere to your example. Sorry for the mix up.

But to continue this thread from thereafter........
Why so much concern about absolute truth? Cause, and effect is physical domino effect. Words are physical in the sense that they alter electronic states in the brain, and cause, and effect always has to mean that the universe is in a cycle of movement, and very much like a falling domino game. All you have to do is find the dominos which have nothing before them to knock them over.

[David Quinn]

I'm suspicious of this idea of 'pointing to' and also suspicious of the nature of that which is being referred to, by these transient appearances that are ideas.

Keep in mind that your own posts are momentary attempts to point to something universal and timeless.

-

[Faust]

Now let's get back to the ORIGINAL dilemma of this thread. How does QRS prove that causality is not empirical and 'logical'??? Saying that nothing can exist on its own, is empirical, how is this 'logical'??

How does "nothing can exist on its own" relate to and prove causality?

[average]

"Exist" and "thing" are relative terms.

X exists relative to not-X.


The concept of causality is implied by the notion of a thing and existence, since things are dependent on other things to exist.

An "independent thing" is a contradiction, since it would have no parts and be independent of existence itself.

[Faust]

"Exist" and "thing" are relative terms.

X exists relative to not-X.


The concept of causality is implied by the notion of a thing and existence, since things are dependent on other things to exist.

An "independent thing" is a contradiction, since it would have no parts and be independent of existence itself.

and all this is empirical isn't it.

[average]

"Exist" and "thing" are relative terms.

X exists relative to not-X.


The concept of causality is implied by the notion of a thing and existence, since things are dependent on other things to exist.

An "independent thing" is a contradiction, since it would have no parts and be independent of existence itself.

and all this is empirical isn't it.

its more of an analysis of meanings and what they imply...


also, the importance of causality is that it shows you the dependency of all things, their empty transient nature. Since causes and effects are all empty then causality itself is also empty, and once this is understood of all things then causality should be let go of as well.

I don't think this type of analysis is really logical or empirical, its real intention is soteriological.

[Faust]

also, the importance of causality is that it shows you the dependency of all things, their empty transient nature. Since causes and effects are all empty then causality itself is also empty

this doesn't follow to me. What does it mean to say "causality itself is also empty"?

I don't think this type of analysis is really logical or empirical, its real intention is soteriological.

no it's just that you're a lunatic.