Do Absolutes Exist? My Perspective

[rewebster]

I think it depends on how many parameters, variables, variations, etc. you exclude.

"And this too will change" is about the most absolute that I know.

 

[mogthew]

My friends and I were having a debate last night and I thought I would share. I basically said that I believe absolutes exist. Some things are 100% for sure. Maybe not everything, but there are some things that you can say you know without a doubt.

For my example, I used math. I said that math is something that is independent of all variables. It exists outside of time, length, probability, etc. Therefore, I can say with 100% confidence that 2*3=6, because the definition of 2*3 is 6, and that is what we defined it as. My friends were still doubtful that this would hold true in some weird universes were perhaps math was different. I believe that for any universe, math is the same. The reason is that math has no dependencies on any physical phenomena. It does not change for any reason, and that is what it is defined to do.

They also said that math only exists if you have something to count... but I think this is flawed logic. Math doesn't have to be used to exist. A blind person cannot see light, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

So the question is, is there anything that is certain? I believe that math can be used to say that some things are certain, because they are defined to be so.

2*3=6 isn't always true when looking at number systems not to the base 10. So in that sense, not even maths is absolute :P

 

[Langbein]

I was reading trough this tread to try to find the discussion of the questions I thought would be the most interesting related to this case.

1. What does the word "existence" mean ?
2. What are the limits for how you can apply to general conclusions from one or more oservations.

Lets take multiplying speeds as an example.

2*100 m/s = 200 m/s
2*300.000 m/s = 300.000 m/s

I think the general conclusion can be something like this as an absolute: Some times you can multiply the speed of an object to obtain a new speed and some time it does not work like that at all.

Any "truth" or any "absolute" will be valid, related to that local system where it is controlled and verified only.

So "truth" and "absolutness" will allways be a local phenomen.

What should be the reasons to believe that it should not be like that ?

As there wa only two alternatives I choosed yes for that alternative in the poll that absoluts does exist, but I think it also will be right to say that the validity of any absolute will not be an absolute.

All absolutes is related to something else and restricted to more or less local conditions.

 

[honestrosewater]

1. What does the word "existence" mean ?

What does that have to do with certainty, dependence, or completeness (as those appear to relate to the leading meanings of "absolute" around here)? (Edit: Oh, it just hit me that you might have been referring to the "do absolutes exist?" question. Haha, sorry. (What is that they say about getting lost in invisible forests? ) Is that what you meant?)

And, in any case, the answer to your question seems incredibly simple to me: a word means whatever you say it means. You have a choice. I think the most amazing thing in this thread (and some others in the neighborhood) is how little some people seem to care about agreeing on the meaning of crucial words in a discussion, and I certainly see the value of deciding those things. But I fail to see how the meaning of a word is any deep philosophical question.

Lets take multiplying speeds as an example.

2*100 m/s = 200 m/s
2*300.000 m/s = 300.000 m/s

I presume this is meant to be the speed of light (or any electromagnetic radiation) in a vacuum.? What is the physical interpretation of "multiplying speeds"? Also, this speed is a definition, so it doesn't depend on observation, right? And according to Wikipedia (which I imagine is reliable enough for this discussion), it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light" .

 

[loseyourname]

The more salient point of physical manifestations of speed is that they can sometimes be added and sometimes cannot be. For instance, when I run in the same direction the Earth is orbiting the sun, I am moving faster with respect to the sun that if I were to turn around and run in the opposite direction. No matter which way I shine a flashlight, though, it's always going to emit photons moving at c with respect to any inertial reference frame whatsoever.

The sense in which this statement of fact constitutes an "absolute" truth, however, is still contingent in two ways: 1) is it logically possible that things the facts could be otherwise, and 2) it is empirically possible that the facts could change. Believing that a fact about physics will continue to be a fact about physics presupposes the principle of the uniformity of nature, which is not itself a logically necessary proposition or confirmed as a fact within physics.

All of this continues to get at the question that is not being answered: what does it mean for something to be absolute? Are we thinking of absolute statements, as in statements that must be true in any context? Is a definition enough? A book has content of some sort. How about tautologies? Every atom in the universe is either hydrogen or is not hydrogen. What about necessarily true performative statements? I am speaking. Every time a person says that out loud, it is true.

Are any of these absolutes? Or are we looking for objects with absolute existence rather than statements with absolute truth values? What does that mean? The Aristotelian "unmoved mover" that is the cause of all other things but which itself has no cause? We can certainly construct an argument attempting to prove that such a thing exists and must exist; in fact, most of philosophy until Hobbes or so was devoted to doing just that. Google "ontological argument" or "neoplatonism" and read to your heart's delight.

 

[WhatIf...?]

I think that their is no absolute thing and that everything varries on another thing. If their weren't numbers then their would be no math because if their were no numbers we would not have invented math thus saying math is not an absolute.

If the world was simple and somehow something or someone did everything for us it would eliminate a lot of things so it varries on those things

 

[Thebluepillow]

To be absolute it would have to have been set there from the beginning. And not many things have been set into time permanently everything has been altered in some way. There are something things that have been set so technically absolutism does exit. For example shapes will be shapes there names maybe changed but shapes are still shapes. A circle will always be a circle no matter what u call. It will always be round with no edges even if we could somehow change the name to a square it will still stays round and it still have no edges. To cut the shape would only alter it appearance and would change it form a circle to 2 semicircles, therefor shapes are absolute. Which brings up my first point for it to be absolute it must be set in time. Unlike numbers shapes have always been there.

 

[honestrosewater]

If their weren't numbers then their would be no math because if their were no numbers we would not have invented math thus saying math is not an absolute.

So "math" here is a human activity, I take it? How do you know what humans actually would or would not have done?

Also, numbers are not the only mathematical objects.

And math seems better defined by how it studies things rather than by what it studies. And it doesn't seem reasonable to me to consider counting to be math. Most adults and children, and even some animals, can count, yet you don't normally call them mathematicians. But if you want to be liberal, I would think that geometry and quantification probably developed around the same time, if geometry didn't in fact come first. At any rate, do you even have evidence to suggest that quantification was first? (You are talking about tens of thousands of years ago, e.g., drawings on cave walls, marks in bones.)

 

[paledim]

absolute is a strong term. however, no one can ever know if something stands infinitely strong for infinity. even the concept of infinity may not be absolute, because infinity cannot be measured, yet, infinity is heavier than any mathematical equation. 1+1 is 2, but this is what we are taught, humans created mathematics, to be able to measure and give ourselves guidance. but, pi, being infinite, holds more strength than 1+1, because a number is not infinite, it is finite, it has an end (don't give me that 2.0000000... stuff either). absolutes do not have an end, they have no boundary but only those which are imposed on themselves. then again, a singular number holds itself well, and is absolute to itself, yet more simple.

instead of asking if absolutes exists, we should ask: what is the strength of the absolutes that do exist?

 

[honestrosewater]

Welcome to PF, paledim.

infinity cannot be measured

Why not? How are you trying to measure it?

pi, being infinite, holds more strength than 1+1, because a number is not infinite, it is finite, it has an end (don't give me that 2.0000000... stuff either).

Since when is pi not a number? Also, how is cardinality defined as a property of numbers? I have only seen cardinality as a property of sets, e.g., the set of digits in the decimal expansion of the numeral representation of some number.

 

[paledim]

pi is and is not a number. pi is a measurement of circular precision. i don't mean number as in the calculating end of things. it's infinite characteristic has more value then a simple/absolute number. where say 2 cannot be used for anything other than caculations.

 

[paledim]

but no absolutes do not exist. humans created mathematics as a guide to "measure", if absolutes exist, its because humans say they exist. absolutes are created by us.

 

[baywax]

but no absolutes do not exist. humans created mathematics as a guide to "measure", if absolutes exist, its because humans say they exist. absolutes are created by us.

Take the Vodka for hexample...

 

[paledim]

yes lol