What is the true meaning of relative and absolute?

[theName()]

I don t think we can define anything. Let say, something like an apple. usually, when people try to define a word, it uses other words that group together to form meanings. The general scheme is that someone starts with something specific( it is a fruit, it is round, it has a certain texture) to something general ( atoms, substomic particles ..)

1) we form a is-a relationship. Ex: apple is a fruth. apple is a configuration of some type of atoms. The flaw to me is that we are defining something we don't know with something we believe we know, but we don t know.

The second thing about definitions is that nobody agrees with it. we all know that a definition is suppost to "mean" something, but we don t know what all those means is suppost to 'mean'. I thousand people can have a thousand definitions of what the word "love" mean, but those definitions does not tell us anything about the word "love". It is quite obvious to me that a blind person ` s perspection of 'apple' or 'color' is quite different from a non-blind person` s perspective of 'apple' or 'color'. we interpret that which is before us, but what that 'is' before us is anyone s guess.


2) definition are inseparable from individual observers.



An apple is a system. we define this system by a set of finited statements. Why must it be finite, and not infinite. A single word that has a infinite, incompressable definition.

3) a single word might be incapable of being expressed.


inspite of all this, we still believe we mean what we say when we throw out words. A dictionary is a web of relationships build on a meaningless entities used by meaningless beings.

 

[Mickey]

Words aren't defined by dictionaries. They are first defined by empirical experience. Then a panel of authors accumulates these definitions and formulates them for accessibility into a reference material. That words all seem to refer to one another is a coincidence of our compiling them this way.

The dictionary was only invented during the Enlightenment period, but clearly words had definitions long before then. People defined words through common experience. "This is an apple," they said while holding an apple. They did not need to mention color, shape, or anything else at all. They just had to have the experience.

 

[theName()]

It is deeper than words in a dictionary. words and dictionaries are just analogies. it is about definitions, and not completely about definitions. anyways

 

[octelcogopod]

You have touched upon something I have thought about many times.
While it's not exactly clear in your post, I will try to explain my interpretation.

Basically the problem is that we have nothing to compare the universe and all it's objects to.
An apple compared to an orange tells us nothing but the relative relationship between the apple and the orange, it doesn't tell us what these individual things are by themselves.

The problem is that everything is like this, everything is always relative to something else, and thus you get infinite regress of relativity.
At some point you must reach an absolute, and nobody knows what that absolute is.

How this relates to your definition topic is that as you say; an apple is a fruit, an apple is atoms, an apple is round, an apple is this and that, but it doesn't say what an apple IS.
And it can't, because this comparison is created in the mind, and the mind needs something else to define an apple against.

Things in nature just are. They're not what they are not, but they are what they are, as simple as that.

However we CANNOT say that there are no definitions.
Those definitions in the dictionary are subjective definitions, created for the purpose of identifying words in a language with objects, concepts and so forth.

This means that the definition is an emergent property of the universe, it's not meant to be deduced to whatever else, it can only be understood from a person(s) mind.

 

[Rade]

I don t think we can define anything.

We can recognize that our definitions are contextual, apply our best definition to a concept (such as apple) as our current knowledge allows, then move on. If what you mean is that humans can not have perfect definitions, I would agree, but this does not mean we can not (and should not) define.

 

[neurocomp2003]

IMO a basic definition is an agreement between people on a sound or series of sounds to label an action or object. Once you fill your vocabulary(brain) with these primitive words...however many there are...you can begin to use these words to create new definitions ...which leads to all those little annoying little connector words in the english and french language.

 

[moving finger]

You have touched upon something I have thought about many times.
While it's not exactly clear in your post, I will try to explain my interpretation.

Basically the problem is that we have nothing to compare the universe and all it's objects to.
An apple compared to an orange tells us nothing but the relative relationship between the apple and the orange, it doesn't tell us what these individual things are by themselves.

The problem is that everything is like this, everything is always relative to something else, and thus you get infinite regress of relativity.
At some point you must reach an absolute, and nobody knows what that absolute is.

How this relates to your definition topic is that as you say; an apple is a fruit, an apple is atoms, an apple is round, an apple is this and that, but it doesn't say what an apple IS.
And it can't, because this comparison is created in the mind, and the mind needs something else to define an apple against.

Things in nature just are. They're not what they are not, but they are what they are, as simple as that.

However we CANNOT say that there are no definitions.
Those definitions in the dictionary are subjective definitions, created for the purpose of identifying words in a language with objects, concepts and so forth.

This means that the definition is an emergent property of the universe, it's not meant to be deduced to whatever else, it can only be understood from a person(s) mind.

Exactly.

Very often when we speak of the "definition" of a word, we mean the "meaning" of that word. There is no absolute meaning, words take meaning from the way they are used in language, and that's it.

I have noticed that some advocates of libertarian free will argue that they believe there is some "absolute meaning" in the universe, and this is why they say that a deterministic universe can have no meaning. Imho this is rubbish. Understand meaning for what it truly is (contextual, relative, "the meaning is in accordance with how words are used"), and there is no problem.

I don't agree with your comment that "at some point you must reach an absolute" - this would be in accord with the premise that there is absolute meaning in the world - and I see no reason to believe this is true.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, I have barely thought about this absolute, but it seems to me that the objective world in itself is the absolute, while our subjective worlds(our interpretation of it) are relative.

Will ponder this for a bit...

 

[loseyourname]

I don t think we can define anything. Let say, something like an apple. usually, when people try to define a word, it uses other words that group together to form meanings.

There is actually a pretty straightforward answer to this. For whatever reason, the dictionary hasn't quite caught up yet, but technically speaking, a "definition" is simply a string of symbols that is equated to another string of symbols. For instance, "bachelor" = "any unmarried male." This does not convey the actual meaning of either of these strings of symbols, but instead presupposes that the person reading the definition already knows the meaning of one string, thereby elucidating for him the meaning of the other string. This 'meaning,' or the semantic content of the symbols, is an entirely different matter, and relies upon intersubjective agreement on how the symbols will function in everyday spoken and written language by the speakers and writers of that language; as such, 'meanings' are always evolving. Oftentimes, there is some empirical reference for a word or group of words, but there does not have to be.

 

[moving finger]

Well, I have barely thought about this absolute, but it seems to me that the objective world in itself is the absolute

Is it? How do you know this?

What, exactly, do you mean by "objective world", and do you have any access to this world?

Best Regards

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe this is much like Descartes dilemma: how can we know anything exists?

His answer was to deny everything until he could prove it, and he went all the way back the beginning. Ultimately, yes, he had to start with an initial, fundamental assumption:

I think therefore I am.

By this, Descartes means that inasmuch as he is capable of forming this thought at all, he can label that he is doing the thinking. Therefore, he must exist.

So, now he can start to define things that are his thought versus things that are his sense. As he goes, he labels them. This is me. That is not me. That is a thing I see, this is a thing I imagine.

By this process, he is able to work his way outwards from self to the whole world.

 

[octelcogopod]

Is it? How do you know this?

What, exactly, do you mean by "objective world", and do you have any access to this world?

Best Regards

Well it occurs to me that nobody will ever see the universe from a third perspective, not even god.
Not bible god but a creator of sorts.
Regardless, the assumption is that we are sensing something which is not created by us.
In this inherent assumption also lies a fact, the fact that this world which is not created by us most be absolute.
It cannot be relative.

This is because a world not created by observers, is created by something which is not changeable, its definition does not change.
The only definitions of a relative world that would change, would be the relative values, but even those would be calculated by the absolute, and be thus absolute.

I hope I am making some sense here.

If we say that a definition is a comparative statement to something else, then we can say that the definition of objective is that which is not comparable to anything.
This is counterintiutive of the meaning of the word definition, but if we go a little deeper we see that the absolute is actually "everything."
It is all that has ever existed, will ever exist, and could possibly exist.
The absolute is that which does not change, because any change it makes is already history and thus a part of the absolute.

What this means to me is that even god would be relative to the absolute, because he himself would be an observer.
Once again I'm not talking a religious god, but an omnipotent creator of any kind.

Thus, imo the absolute exists because it is observerless, but no observer can ever perceive it, but it still exists.

 

[moving finger]

I believe this is much like Descartes dilemma: how can we know anything exists?

His answer was to deny everything until he could prove it, and he went all the way back the beginning. Ultimately, yes, he had to start with an initial, fundamental assumption:

I think therefore I am.

By this, Descartes means that inasmuch as he is capable of forming this thought at all, he can label that he is doing the thinking. Therefore, he must exist.

So, now he can start to define things that are his thought versus things that are his sense. As he goes, he labels them. This is me. That is not me. That is a thing I see, this is a thing I imagine.

By this process, he is able to work his way outwards from self to the whole world.

Agreed. But this does not lead to the safe conclusion that there IS an objective world. In the end, Descartes is left with a subjective perspective - the impression that there is a "self" and something "outside the self" which is perceived by the self.

But does this lead to the safe conclusion that the "objective world is absolute"?

It seems to me that such a proposition is at best a premise, not a conclusion.

Best Regards

 

[DaveC426913]

Agreed. But this does not lead to the safe conclusion that there IS an objective world.
< snip >
It seems to me that such a proposition is at best a premise, not a conclusion.

True, but I think that it might go further. Along the same lines as 'unfalsifiable theories', if there is no way, even in principle, to determine whether there is an objective reality as opposed to an illusion, then it is a invalid question to ask.

 

[moving finger]

Well it occurs to me that nobody will ever see the universe from a third perspective, not even god.
Not bible god but a creator of sorts.

I sympathise - any perspective is a perspective by definition, and hence all perspectives are subjective. The scientific ideal of a subjectiveless 3rd person perspective is an approximation at best.

Regardless, the assumption is that we are sensing something which is not created by us.
In this inherent assumption also lies a fact, the fact that this world which is not created by us most be absolute.
It cannot be relative.

Either it's an assumption or it's a fact - which is it to be? If you wish to claim it is a fact that "solipsism is false" then you will need to show why you think this is a fact rather than an assumption.

This is because a world not created by observers, is created by something which is not changeable, its definition does not change.

How do you know the world that you perceive is not created by you?

The only definitions of a relative world that would change, would be the relative values, but even those would be calculated by the absolute, and be thus absolute.

I hope I am making some sense here.

Not in the last sentence, nope.

If we say that a definition is a comparative statement to something else, then we can say that the definition of objective is that which is not comparable to anything.

But it does not follow from this that the world of your perceptions has any objective reality.

This is counterintiutive of the meaning of the word definition, but if we go a little deeper we see that the absolute is actually "everything."
It is all that has ever existed, will ever exist, and could possibly exist.
The absolute is that which does not change, because any change it makes is already history and thus a part of the absolute.

This is a definition of absolute - but it does not follow from this definition that there IS anything which is absolute. I can define a tooth fairy - but it does not follow from this that tooth fairies exist.

What this means to me is that even god would be relative to the absolute, because he himself would be an observer.
Once again I'm not talking a religious god, but an omnipotent creator of any kind.

Thus, imo the absolute exists because it is observerless, but no observer can ever perceive it, but it still exists.

"the absolute exists BECAUSE it is observerless"?

Does this mean that anything which is observerless necessarily exists? I don't think so!

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

True, but I think that it might go further. Along the same lines as 'unfalsifiable theories', if there is no way, even in principle, to determine whether there is an objective reality as opposed to an illusion, then it is a invalid question to ask.

then perhaps we are in agreement.

The proposition that there is an objective reality is a premise. We can assume it is true, or we can assume it is false. But it is a premise, not a conclusion - there is no way to prove it one way or another.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

There is actually a pretty straightforward answer to this. For whatever reason, the dictionary hasn't quite caught up yet, but technically speaking, a "definition" is simply a string of symbols that is equated to another string of symbols. For instance, "bachelor" = "any unmarried male." This does not convey the actual meaning of either of these strings of symbols, but instead presupposes that the person reading the definition already knows the meaning of one string, thereby elucidating for him the meaning of the other string. This 'meaning,' or the semantic content of the symbols, is an entirely different matter, and relies upon intersubjective agreement on how the symbols will function in everyday spoken and written language by the speakers and writers of that language; as such, 'meanings' are always evolving. Oftentimes, there is some empirical reference for a word or group of words, but there does not have to be.

Agreed. Thus, there is no absolute "meaning", all meaning is derived from relative or subjective relationships.

A lesson here for all those philosophical libertarians who insist that free will must exist, and determinism must be false, otherwise there would be no meaning in the world. poppycock.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

The problem as I see it is that on some level the absolute has to exist.
Once we encapsulate everything that exists into something, it becomes the absolute, regardless of what substance or form it has, be it subjective, metaphysical, physical or some other form of existence.

The only way for an absolute to not exist would be if nothing existed, but clearly, you exist, don't you agree?

 

[moving finger]

The problem as I see it is that on some level the absolute has to exist.
Once we encapsulate everything that exists into something, it becomes the absolute, regardless of what substance or form it has, be it subjective, metaphysical, physical or some other form of existence.

The only way for an absolute to not exist would be if nothing existed, but clearly, you exist, don't you agree?

It certainly seems that "something" exists at some level - but just what that something is, in the final analysis, anybody's guess. The problem is that we cannot extrapolate with certainty from our subjective perceptions of the world to any particular objective existence - there is more than one possible solution to the equation.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

I agree that we can't observe anything objective from our subjective state, especially not to our sense and definition of objective.

But if we were to define objective and absolute in another way, namely that which includes everything, then we could conclude with certainty that everything exists.
Saying that only half of something exists is a fallacy.

Furthermore, if we agree that everything that exists, exists, then we can also agree on that in itself, this everything is absolute, because it is everything.
How can everything be relative?
If everything was to be relative, it would mean that there would be something that was not included in everything, because how can somethign be relative to something which doesn't exist?

 

[moving finger]

I agree that we can't observe anything objective from our subjective state, especially not to our sense and definition of objective.

But if we were to define objective and absolute in another way, namely that which includes everything, then we could conclude with certainty that everything exists.
Saying that only half of something exists is a fallacy.

It depends on what you mean exactly by "everything". Do you mean that everything conceivable exists, thus does the King of France exist? Or do you mean that everything "which exists" exists (which is tautological)? Or do you mean something else?

Furthermore, if we agree that everything that exists, exists, then we can also agree on that in itself, this everything is absolute, because it is everything.

Well there you have it - by definition everything which exists, exists. But that's simply a tautology thus not very useful. How are we to differentiate that which exists from that which does not exist?

How can everything be relative?
If everything was to be relative, it would mean that there would be something that was not included in everything, because how can somethign be relative to something which doesn't exist?

As I said in my last post, it would appear that there must be "something" which exists at some fundamental level (otherwise, if everything is relative, we have an infinite regress as you have alluded to). Thus it seems that not everything is relative - but how are we to determine from this (with certainty) what is relative (or illusory), and what is real?

(Note that the recognition that not everything can be illusory does not imply that there is necessarily any absolute meaning in the world, in the philosophical libertarian sense of "meaning of life", or teleological purpose)

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

It depends on what you mean exactly by "everything". Do you mean that everything conceivable exists, thus does the King of France exist? Or do you mean that everything "which exists" exists (which is tautological)? Or do you mean something else?

I meant everything which exists. The problem is, this absolute must also contain everything conceivable, because such things also exist, on some level or another.
But on the absolute level, everything is clear, the separation between subjective and objective is also "clear", because there is no more knowledge to be found about either.

Well there you have it - by definition everything which exists, exists. But that's simply a tautology thus not very useful. How are we to differentiate that which exists from that which does not exist?

That's an excellent point, but I think that the absolute is not meant to be analyzed by us. We simply cannot ask "how to we differentiate the absolute from that which does not exist" because in that sentence you use the word "that which does not exist", which implies that there is something that does exist, because it doesn't, thus that which does not exist is already a part of the absolute.

But about the tautology thing, I guess you're right, all this speculation on what the absolute is, doesn't help us much.
But I ask you this, and this is just speculation cause obvious I don't have the "answer", but, what if we(humans), can touch on the absolute, in our minds.
For instance most would agree that there is 10 meters between the walls in my room, even if everything is subjective, this is still a fact, because the room exists to me, and thus it becomes a fact in my subjective world.
If we think about it, everything is a fact like that.
My (undeveloped) theory is that everything we have created as our world and universe, is the absolute, and we are also this absolute.

It seems most peoples problem is that they want to find the absolute.
They want facts, they want something that is undoubtably true and final.

As I said in my last post, it would appear that there must be "something" which exists at some fundamental level (otherwise, if everything is relative, we have an infinite regress as you have alluded to). Thus it seems that not everything is relative - but how are we to determine from this (with certainty) what is relative (or illusory), and what is real?

(Note that the recognition that not everything can be illusory does not imply that there is necessarily any absolute meaning in the world, in the philosophical libertarian sense of "meaning of life", or teleological purpose)

Best Regards

Well, as I said above my theory is that everything is actually absolute, and we even use this absolute everyday.
When I hold a cup of tea, and I drink the tea, it is absolute and without a doubt that I'm drinking tea, right?
It is also a fact that I have a body, and a stomach to absorb this tea.

I have many times thought "yeah but what if you're actually not drinking tea in the "real world" but actually just simulating it in your head."
The problem with this is that if I were to simulate in my head, then the world in my head would also need an absolute.
And this leads to infinite regress again, because then we have our "headworld" to examine, which again in theory can be contained in some other world.

I realize it is an assumption to accept that only the world we see is the real world, but I also accept that in this world, there still exists facts, and that these facts, like the distance between walls in a room, are absolute.
Or at least they are part of the absolute, because nobody can deny the distance between two walls right?

Also it should be said this a bit confusing.

 

[moving finger]

We simply cannot ask "how to we differentiate the absolute from that which does not exist" because in that sentence you use the word "that which does not exist", which implies that there is something that does exist, because it doesn't, thus that which does not exist is already a part of the absolute.

Are you saying that there is nothing which does not exist?
Even hypothetical entities which involve logical contradiction or logical impossibility?

But about the tautology thing, I guess you're right, all this speculation on what the absolute is, doesn't help us much.
But I ask you this, and this is just speculation cause obvious I don't have the "answer", but, what if we(humans), can touch on the absolute, in our minds.

Maybe we can do so - but how are we to know for certain that we are actually touching on the absolute (as opposed to simply thinking that we are)?

For instance most would agree that there is 10 meters between the walls in my room, even if everything is subjective, this is still a fact, because the room exists to me, and thus it becomes a fact in my subjective world.
If we think about it, everything is a fact like that.

The notion of absolute space & time was consigned to the scrapheap along with Newton's clockwork universe. The distance measured between the walls of your room (even assuming those walls are real) depends on one's frame of reference.

It seems most peoples problem is that they want to find the absolute.
They want facts, they want something that is undoubtably true and final.

Are you saying your absolute is not true & final? That's a strange form of absolute.

When I hold a cup of tea, and I drink the tea, it is absolute and without a doubt that I'm drinking tea, right?

Is it? Or is it that you simply think you are drinking tea?

I have many times thought "yeah but what if you're actually not drinking tea in the "real world" but actually just simulating it in your head."
The problem with this is that if I were to simulate in my head, then the world in my head would also need an absolute.
And this leads to infinite regress again, because then we have our "headworld" to examine, which again in theory can be contained in some other world.

An infinite regress can be stopped at any point by postulating that at some level there is an absolute reality. But at what level? You seem to assume that the level of "my head is real" is the absolute reality; whereas in fact it could be the case that your entire perceptual experience (including the notion that you have a head) is simulated in a machine - a la Matrix. How would you know?

I realize it is an assumption to accept that only the world we see is the real world, but I also accept that in this world, there still exists facts, and that these facts, like the distance between walls in a room, are absolute.
Or at least they are part of the absolute, because nobody can deny the distance between two walls right?

Sure they can - relativity clearly tells us that distances measured depend on one's frame of reference. And if the walls are simply illusions created within the machine which is also creating your experience - what real (absolute) meaning does it have to say that there is an illusory 10 metres between two illusory walls?

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, after some contemplation on this topic, I have come to the following things. Please share your comments.

Everything is relative, because no observer can ever know truly that they are seeing the absolute, but the absolute exists because it is everything.

This is counterintuitive, but at the same time logical when you think about it.
So, if every observer must always be in the relative, does that mean there is no absolute meaning in the world?
To some extent yes, but it also means that every level, on its own, in its own self contained way, is absolute.

For instance my walls example.
In my world it is absolute, unless the physical world changes, there will always be 10 meters between these walls, but there's always the possibility that these are illusory.

However, the point still stands that everything is absolute and relative at the same time.

I don't know how else to explain my thoughts on this.

 

[moving finger]

Everything is relative, because no observer can ever know truly that they are seeing the absolute, but the absolute exists because it is everything.

I don't see how all existence can be relative. That seems to me (as you have already pointed out above) to lead to infinite regress. If the world of our perceptions is an illusion (not real) created by (supervenient on) some other world of which we are not directly aware, and if that world in turn is not real and is supervenient on another, and so on... then we have an infinite regress. This does not seem coherent to me. At some level there must be some form of "real foundation" - but the big problem we cannot answer is where this foundation is. But just because we cannot know for certain what is real, it does not follow that nothing is real.

This is counterintuitive, but at the same time logical when you think about it.

As explained above, I don't see the idea that all existence is relative is a coherent notion.

So, if every observer must always be in the relative, does that mean there is no absolute meaning in the world?
To some extent yes, but it also means that every level, on its own, in its own self contained way, is absolute.

For instance my walls example.
In my world it is absolute, unless the physical world changes, there will always be 10 meters between these walls, but there's always the possibility that these are illusory.

However, the point still stands that everything is absolute and relative at the same time.

I think you will need to define exactly what you mean when you use the words "absolute" and "relative" in this context. Are these terms supposed to be mutually exclusive? If yes, then how can an entity be both relative and absolute?

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Aha, but I didn't say nothing was absolute, I said everything was relative.
Anything becomes absolute the moment you can step outside it and completely understand it.
Thus from the inside of anything, it's always relative.
Thus we can say that to see the absolute, we have to step outside it, but this is of course impossible, because anything we step outside and into will always be a part of the absolute, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute.

With this reasoning we can see the absolute will never be observable or provable, because it encompasses everything.
The moment you step out of the absolute, you redefine it to include yourself and what you stepped out into, thus you are forever in a trap.

The error in this theory is that of the observer.
No observer will ever see the absolute, just by pure definition.
Any observer which is taught to observe 3 dimensional shapes will always have the ability to imagine a shape outside another shape.
What's missing here is that there cannot be an absolute, in a relative sense.

The only thing that can be absolute is that which is 100% complete without anything else.
So by logic, the absolute is simply everything that exists.
The absolute is then of course infinite, as a theory.

 

[moving finger]

Aha, but I didn't say nothing was absolute, I said everything was relative.
Anything becomes absolute the moment you can step outside it and completely understand it.
Thus from the inside of anything, it's always relative.
Thus we can say that to see the absolute, we have to step outside it, but this is of course impossible, because anything we step outside and into will always be a part of the absolute, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute.

With this reasoning we can see the absolute will never be observable or provable, because it encompasses everything.
The moment you step out of the absolute, you redefine it to include yourself and what you stepped out into, thus you are forever in a trap.

The error in this theory is that of the observer.
No observer will ever see the absolute, just by pure definition.
Any observer which is taught to observe 3 dimensional shapes will always have the ability to imagine a shape outside another shape.
What's missing here is that there cannot be an absolute, in a relative sense.

The only thing that can be absolute is that which is 100% complete without anything else.
So by logic, the absolute is simply everything that exists.
The absolute is then of course infinite, as a theory.

I think I understand what you seem to be saying. Since we, as observers, are part of what we are observing then everything we observe is in a sense relative (relative to our perspective from within the system). The only way to get an absolute perspective would be to view the system from outside, which we cannot do.

But since you still have not defined exactly what you mean by "relative" and "absolute" in this context, that's about all I can understand from your post.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

I would define relative as something that is in relation to something else, and absolute as something that cannot be compared to anything else.

In a sense, the absolute doesn't exist because it is everything, but in a way, everything that exists has to exist, at which point it automatically becomes absolute.
If you imagine an apple on a table, then the apple is absolute when looking outside and onto it.
There's nothing relative about that apple until you start comparing it to something else, like the table.

So what relative and absolute really means, is that no matter how a system functions, it will always be absolute to itself, but relative to everything else..

What my original point was, is that everything that is relative is also absolute, in itself.
It's just a matter of perspective.
And any perspective is by default relative right?

Well, I don't think this helps us understand some of the more fundamental problems anyway, so I dunno..