Do Absolutes Exist? My Perspective

[raolduke]

Nicely put baywax.
.

if absolutes did not exist, that condition itself would be an absolute.

If you are having trouble understanding-
Either things happen or they don't.
You can be absolutely sure something didn't happen.

 

[sd01g]

Put another way:

if absolutes did not exist, that condition itself would be an absolute.

Thus, absolutes will always exist in a kind of "immortal" way.

I agree that at least ONE absolute necessarily must always exist as long as there is rational thought, but where (or in what form) was this 'absolute absolute' before there was rational thought, or where will it exist after there is no more rational thought? Would you care to elaborate on the very interesting concept of existing in a kind of immortal way?

 

[baywax]

I agree that at least ONE absolute necessarily must always exist as long as there is rational thought, but where (or in what form) was this 'absolute absolute' before there was rational thought, or where will it exist after there is no more rational thought? Would you care to elaborate on the very interesting concept of existing in a kind of immortal way?

Well, thank you for the comments.

Sometimes we take our concepts too seriously. Our reactions to stimulus are our reactions and we own our reactions. No one else can live by them, own them or even come close to understanding them.

We can only decide something is an absolute because we have, as was said, rational and reasoning power and, not to forget, an awareness and the power of observation.

If fresh water always freezes at a certain temperature that is an absolute, according to our definition of absolutes and what we observe water as doing. But this is only because we are able to observe this constancy and only because we have a dire need to pidgeon hole the events we become aware of. Especially when these events appear to happen regularly and with congruency.

Regularity, congruency, constancy and pidgeon holes are all concepts demanded and required by humans because of our fragile nature when compared to certain other species and the rigors of matter, space, flame and other elements.

Our concepts are the result of our will to survive. We search for absolutes like a miner waits to hit bedrock. Its a primal instinct for us to designate a ceiling, floor and wall against which we can stop and say " ah, that's not going anywhere" and move on to the next challenge.

So, I think I was getting a bit over romantic with the notion that an absolute can be immortal. This is because that can only be proven when the rational, reasonable, calculating search for congruency, constancy and regularity is also immortal. And vampires desire none of these conditions!

 

[honestrosewater]

(Oh, I didn't see your last post.)

Saying that something exists in "a kind of immortal way" makes it sound to me as though you don't know what "exists" means, which should have been figured out before assuming that the original question made any sense to begin with.

Can anyone tell me what the question means? It sounds like "absolute" was taken to be concerned with doubt and certainty, but I usually think of absoluteness in a slightly different way, having more to do with dependence or relativity of some kind, ontological, valuable, measurable, etc. I'll offer a definition that fits with the tautology example already going.

Definition. A proposition is an absolute proposition iff its truth-value does not depend upon the truth-value of any other propositions.

So now tautologies and contradictions have the property of being absolute. But they are of course only absolute relative to a given logic. All of your reasoning is dependent upon the system in which it exists, including all of the claims set forth in this thread.

What other objects, besides propositions, are presumed to be able to have some property of absoluteness? Did no one else play that game where you start with some system, come up with some property, and ask whether or not any objects in your system have that property?

 

[madness]

A proposition is only true within (relative to) the assumptions of that model of logic, ie propositional logic etc, in that sense the proposition is only true in a relative sense. Perhaps truth is relative, and things can only be absolute within certain reference frames (models of truth). But then again, maybe there is only one correct model of truth and everything is either absolutely true or false. If there is only one correct model of truth, then I don't think it is possible to know with certainty what it is. For example, something might be true relative to the assumption that god exists, but false relative to the assumption that he doesnt. How can we know which one is absolutely true, if either?

 

[honestrosewater]

A proposition is only true within (relative to) the assumptions of that model of logic, ie propositional logic etc, in that sense the proposition is only true in a relative sense. Perhaps truth is relative, and things can only be absolute within certain reference frames (models of truth). But then again, maybe there is only one correct model of truth and everything is either absolutely true or false. If there is only one correct model of truth, then I don't think it is possible to know with certainty what it is. For example, something might be true relative to the assumption that god exists, but false relative to the assumption that he doesnt. How can we know which one is absolutely true, if either?

Yes, maybe a lot of things are a lot of ways. But if you want to arrive at a conclusion, you need to start with some premises. Did you ever read Lear? Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.

What do you propose "knowing with certainty" would mean? All you need is an assumption to get you going. What meaning of "absolute" are you using, the definition that I gave earlier or another definition? I agree about your example. If you are using my definition, neither proposition is absolute since, as you just said, their truth-values depend on the truth-value of another proposition.

 

[baywax]

A proposition is only true within (relative to) the assumptions of that model of logic, ie propositional logic etc, in that sense the proposition is only true in a relative sense. Perhaps truth is relative, and things can only be absolute within certain reference frames (models of truth). But then again, maybe there is only one correct model of truth and everything is either absolutely true or false. If there is only one correct model of truth, then I don't think it is possible to know with certainty what it is. For example, something might be true relative to the assumption that god exists, but false relative to the assumption that he doesnt. How can we know which one is absolutely true, if either?

A decision is a form of an absolute. Initial decisions are what we base subsequent decisions upon. When we decide there is an absolute condition such as a "creator" then there are decisions that follow afterwards that fall into place with the absolute idea of a creator. The creator becomes our ceiling or our wall or the floor against which all other decisions or absolutes are formed and compared.

This is also why delineating an absolute is dangerous and often disappointing. Imagine finding out that what you thought was an absolute was really a highly mutable prospect. Having the floor and the rug pulled out from under you can be upsetting and have grave consequences to mental health, stability and security.

 

[honestrosewater]

What you are describing is known throughout philosophy, math, and science as an assumption, premise, hypothesis, axiom, postulate, etc.

This is also why delineating an absolute is dangerous and often disappointing.

What is dangerous about it? It is done regularly in math, science, daily life, and so on. I do it all the time. How could you avoid it?

And why do you find the axioms especially scary? In addition to them, you have rules about what you can derive from them and how. And you probably have another system on top of that in which you check, or try to check, that your system has all of the properties that you want it to have, and so on.

If you know that your assumption is just that -- an assumption -- what causes the danger and disappointment?

 

[baywax]

What you are describing is known throughout philosophy, math, and science as an assumption, premise, hypothesis, axiom, postulate, etc.

What is dangerous about it? It is done regularly in math, science, daily life, and so on. I do it all the time. How could you avoid it?

And why do you find the axioms especially scary? In addition to them, you have rules about what you can derive from them and how. And you probably have another system on top of that in which you check, or try to check, that your system has all of the properties that you want it to have, and so on.

If you know that your assumption is just that -- an assumption -- what causes the danger and disappointment?

For people who put all their faith in an absolute that does not or (turns out not) to exist, it can be an upsetting event to find out otherwise.

Not everyone is aware that they have made an assumption. Blind faith is blind to everything but the assumption made.

Are you implying that an absolute is an assumption? Because that would make a good definition.

 

[honestrosewater]

Are you implying that an absolute is an assumption? Because that would make a good definition.

No, I am just trying to clarify what I see here. It's a definition. If you want it to be, just state it.

I don't find that definition helpful. I already have plenty of words for assumptions. (That list goes on.) And I use "absolute" for other things. But it fits with the idea of absolutes not being dependent upon other things in some way, so I don't completely hate it. Or maybe I do because of the potential confusion. Note that an assumption is not the same thing as a tautology or contradiction.

Go for it if it is useful to you. Define and let define, I guess.

 

[baywax]

No, I am just trying to clarify what I see here. It's a definition. If you want it to be, just state it.

I don't find that definition helpful. I already have plenty of words for assumptions. (That list goes on.) And I use "absolute" for other things. But it fits with the idea of absolutes not being dependent upon other things in some way, so I don't completely hate it. Or maybe I do because of the potential confusion. Note that an assumption is not the same thing as a tautology or contradiction.

Go for it if it is useful to you. Define and let define, I guess.

Of course your right. I keep noting on this site how using other terms to describe a specific term is confusing and is usually incorrect.

However, one can assume a condition is absolute. In fact one has to assume it is absolute because one may not be around to find out otherwise.

For instance, water may not freeze until 31F at some point in the future and so my (fictional) absolution of the "standard" freezing point of fresh water would turn out to be an assumed absolute, and untrue.

 

[Crosson]

Absolutes truths are those which are universal and necessary, but the denial of which does not produce a contradiction i.e. synthetic a priori truths.

Examples abound: causality, space, time, and the belief that the representations of things we see are actually things outside of ourselves.

 

[loseyourname]

My dictionary defines 'bachelor' as an unmarried man. I was wondering if anyone knows a 2 month old male bachelor?

I stand corrected, then. I had always thought it referred to any male, whether of the legal age of majority or not.

 

[Moridin]

If absolutes exist, then the fact that absolutes exists is an absolute. If absolutes does not exist, then the fact that absolutes does not exist is an absolute.

 

[christianjb]

Catherine Zeta Jones is absolutely beautiful.

 

[madness]

Any assumptions (axioms of a system) are propositions themselves, and any truth within a certain model depends on these propositions and is hence relative to them. If it turns out that one set of axioms is correct (corresponds to reality?) and all others are incorrect, then it could be said that any proposition that can be logically derived from the axioms of the system is absolutely true. But then the Godel Incompleteness theorem shows that there are still propositions within that system that cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false by the axioms of the system. So even if there was one model of truth that was correct, we would not be able to show whether certain things are true or false.

 

[baywax]

Any assumptions (axioms of a system) are propositions themselves, and any truth within a certain model depends on these propositions and is hence relative to them. If it turns out that one set of axioms is correct (corresponds to reality?) and all others are incorrect, then it could be said that any proposition that can be logically derived from the axioms of the system is absolutely true. But then the Godel Incompleteness theorem shows that there are still propositions within that system that cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false by the axioms of the system. So even if there was one model of truth that was correct, we would not be able to show whether certain things are true or false.

Such is the nature of absolute uncertainty.

However, this is only relative to what we are aware of. In nature, whether we are aware or unaware of all events and conditions (edit: is) not important. The way things are is the way they are and that is absolute.

 

[honestrosewater]

However, one can assume a condition is absolute. In fact one has to assume it is absolute because one may not be around to find out otherwise.

I would like to understand what you are saying, but I am still waiting for a definition of "absolute". What you are saying sounds to me like "However, one can assume a condition is brillig. In fact one has to assume it is brillig because one may not be around to find out otherwise."

You assume that your assumptions are provable or true, yes. Now does "absolute" mean simply "provable or true"?

For instance, water may not freeze until 31F at some point in the future and so my (fictional) absolution of the "standard" freezing point of fresh water would turn out to be an assumed absolute, and untrue.

The freezing point of water is the result of an observation. It's just a fact (or a posteriori truth or knowledge or whathaveyou) that water has been observed to behave in a certain way under certain conditions.

If you want to make an assumption about what will be observed in cases that have not been observed, that's just another assumption. Such assumptions are useful and a large part of the usefulness of scientific theories: to make predictions. If you predict something that turns out to be contradicted by observation, then obviously something is wrong, whether with your assumptions, calculations, or whatever else can go wrong. I think other people have already worked out a lot of these things.

How can something "turn out" to be assumed? An assumption can turn out to be wrong or right or undecidable, but it still is and was an assumption.

Again, what are absolutes?

 

[honestrosewater]

Absolutes truths are those which are universal and necessary, but the denial of which does not produce a contradiction i.e. synthetic a priori truths.

Could you say more about how or why they are necessary then (if their denial doesn't produce a contradiction)?

 

[honestrosewater]

If absolutes exist, then the fact that absolutes exists is an absolute. If absolutes does not exist, then the fact that absolutes does not exist is an absolute.

In other words, "absolute" means simply "a true proposition" to you?

Any assumptions (axioms of a system) are propositions themselves, and any truth within a certain model depends on these propositions and is hence relative to them.

Truth does not depend on propositions. It is assigned to propositions. It is an object itself.

Also, a model can but does not necessarily contain any propositions. Propositions, or their parts, are mapped to objects in a model, which assigns them truth-values.

If it turns out that one set of axioms is correct (corresponds to reality?) and all others are incorrect, then it could be said that any proposition that can be logically derived from the axioms of the system is absolutely true. But then the Godel Incompleteness theorem shows that there are still propositions within that system that cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false by the axioms of the system. So even if there was one model of truth that was correct, we would not be able to show whether certain things are true or false.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not apply to every single system. ( I'm not yelling, but seriously, I hope everyone hears and remembers that.)

So "absolute" means "true in the real world" to you?

Also, what is a model of truth? Do you perhaps mean a theory that is modeled by the real world (under some interpretation)?

 

[baywax]

How can something "turn out" to be assumed? An assumption can turn out to be wrong or right or undecidable, but it still is and was an assumption.

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. When the proof becomes visible and apparent and proves the assumption to be untrue the assumption collapses.

Again, what are absolutes?

Absolutes describe many situations.

In most cases absolutes involve the use of assumptions.

You may assume you have attained absolute silence when your stomach rumbles and there is not absolute silence.

You may assume you know the absolute truth when something unexpected proves you wrong.

You may assume yourself to be an absolute monarch who is tyrannical, absolutist, authoritarian arbitrary, absolutely autonomous when you realize you depend on so many people you are wrong.

You may assume to have absolute moral standards that are universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable and absolutist when you realize flexability and relative interaction are more universal than the morals you held as absolute.

absolute |?abs??lo?t; ?abs??lo?t| adjective

1 not qualified or diminished in any way; total : absolute secrecy | absolute silence | the attention he gave you was absolute. • used for general emphasis when expressing an opinion : the policy is absolute folly. • (of powers or rights) not subject to any limitation; unconditional : no one dared challenge her absolute authority | human right to life is absolute. • (of a ruler) having unrestricted power : he proclaimed himself absolute monarch. • Law (of a decree) final : the decree of nullity was made absolute. • Law see absolute title .

2 viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative : absolute moral standards. • Grammar (of a construction) syntactically independent of the rest of the sentence, as in dinner being over, we left the table. • Grammar (of a transitive verb) used without an expressed object (e.g., guns kill). • Grammar (of an adjective) used without an expressed noun (e.g., the brave). noun Philosophy a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things : good and evil are presented as absolutes.

• ( the absolute) Philosophy that which exists without being dependent on anything else.

• ( the absolute) Theology ultimate reality; God.

 

[honestrosewater]

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. When the proof becomes visible and apparent and proves the assumption to be untrue the assumption collapses.

Right, I was referring to what you said here:

For instance, water may not freeze until 31F at some point in the future and so my (fictional) absolution of the "standard" freezing point of fresh water would turn out to be an assumed absolute, and untrue. [my emphasis]

That makes it sound to me like "assumed" is almost synonymous with "untrue". Deciding that a proposition is not true doesn't make it suddenly become an assumption; assigning it a truth-value or "proving" it without using your rules is what makes it an assumption.

The long list of meanings is what I am complaining about. When you allow a single string to have so many different meanings, how do you expect to have a productive or non-fallacy-ridden discussion?

I just reread the OP, and I guess they were actually quite clear in asking about certainty. In response to that, I'd ask in what ways you can be mistaken in assigning a truth-value to a proposition.

The assignment itself is nothing but a definition, and I can't see how exactly it could be wrong. The only area that I can think of where you can make mistakes is in comparing two worlds to each other, e.g., in determining how the world that you perceive, or measure in some way, differs from some supposed "realer" world, or subject of your measurements, or how some world in your memory differs from worlds that you once perceived, etc.

 

[baywax]

Right, I was referring to what you said here:
That makes it sound to me like "assumed" is almost synonymous with "untrue". Deciding that a proposition is not true doesn't make it suddenly become an assumption; assigning it a truth-value or "proving" it without using your rules is what makes it an assumption.

The long list of meanings is what I am complaining about. When you allow a single string to have so many different meanings, how do you expect to have a productive or non-fallacy-ridden discussion?

I just reread the OP, and I guess they were actually quite clear in asking about certainty. In response to that, I'd ask in what ways you can be mistaken in assigning a truth-value to a proposition.

The assignment itself is nothing but a definition, and I can't see how exactly it could be wrong. The only area that I can think of where you can make mistakes is in comparing two worlds to each other, e.g., in determining how the world that you perceive, or measure in some way, differs from some supposed "realer" world, or subject of your measurements, or how some world in your memory differs from worlds that you once perceived, etc.

Egads!

I have made an error in the quote you've taken from my earlier post.

But I'm not going to bother re-writing it.

I'm sorry to be so daft but my point is this:
we are certainly able to identify absolutes today. But it is only out of our ignorance of the absolute's relationship with the rest of the universe and the future. Through the mechanisms of change (ie. time) the situations we declare as absolutes can only be proven to be absolutes for as long as they are observed to demonstrate the properties of an absolute.

When we're not observing our pet absolutes or when all life ceases, where is the proof that the situation we deemed absolute has remained "absolute?

This is why I'm dragging absolutism into the arena with assumption. Its not because they both start with "a".

 

[honestrosewater]

Egads!

Haha, I love "egads".

we are certainly able to identify absolutes today. But it is only out of our ignorance of the absolute's relationship with the rest of the universe and the future. Through the mechanisms of change (ie. time) the situations we declare as absolutes can only be proven to be absolutes for as long as they are observed to demonstrate the properties of an absolute.

What are the properties of an absolute? This is still jabberwocky to me. In some of your examples above, you use "absolute" instead as an adjective to seemingly mean "complete".

Is this connected to your earlier freezing-point-of-water example? I don't see what here is not covered by observation and assumption. You just freeze some water and note at what temperature the state change happens. If you also want to assume that the same experiment repeated tomorrow or at your neighbor's house will yield the same result, then that is an assumption like any other. (I'm sure I've even seen this particular type of assumption stated explicitly in physical theories. The first postulate of Special Relativity comes to mind.)

And if you admit that this "absolute" might change in the future, or depends upon further observations, in what way is it "absolute" (by whichever of the dozen definitions you're using)? That sounds like just an assumption to me.

 

[baywax]

And if you admit that this "absolute" might change in the future, or depends upon further observations, in what way is it "absolute"

Exactly my point. There can be no absolute because of the fact that one cannot prove that an absolute remains independent, singular, and completely unrelated to or unaffected by other situations. An absolute would be similar to a singularity in that it has no relationship with, no dependency on and is above and beyond comparison. This is more of a romantic notion that is either rare or impossible.

My evolving opinion on the subject has come to the point where "absolute" is a specific yet non-scientific term that is only literal in nature and is used to emphasize the "awe" of perceived constancy and uniqueness. It is based on the assumption (no proof) that the universe will not end tomorrow or that its laws will not be reversed by some universal defence lawyer.

That sounds like just an assumption to me.

Yes, my definition entails that all absolutes are based on assumptions.

 

[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.