Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this.  As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. How am I trying to falsify relativism? It's a simple question,is relativism absolute? You are tying to argue, or imply, that if relativism is the reverse of absolute, then one of them must be an absolute. But, as long as the probability exists that either of them could be proved wrong, they can't be absolute. Can you deny that probability? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. How am I trying to falsify relativism? It's a simple question,is relativism absolute? You are tying to argue, or imply, that if relativism is the reverse of absolute, then one of them must be an absolute. But, as long as the probability exists that either of them could be proved wrong, they can't be absolute. Can you deny that probability? What probability? Will it be absolute or relative? You said the "universe makes it impossible for any absolute to exist".Does that also apply to the statement?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute.You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. How am I trying to falsify relativism? It's a simple question,is relativism absolute? You are tying to argue, or imply, that if relativism is the reverse of absolute, then one of them must be an absolute. But, as long as the probability exists that either of them could be proved wrong, they can't be absolute. Can you deny that probability? What probability? Will it be absolute or relative? You said the "universe makes it impossible for any absolute to exist". Does that also apply to the statement? We exist in an intellectually democratic Universe. Anything stated or observed as true, no matter what facts it is based on, can only remain so until it is overtaken by a different interpretation of the same facts. And, yes, this principle applies to the statement I have just made. It is possible that you could prove me wrong. But your proof will only stand as long as no other is proffered. As long as humans have the capacity to reason, the probability of falsifiability will always exist. Or maybe not. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Improbability is also a probability.Balance of paradox.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute. You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object. Yes but not the same object. At least not according to science: Einstein: if you accelerate an object to the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy required to propel it, expand to infinity. Is it still the same object? Schrodinger: The cat is dead or the cat is alive, depends on the observer. Is a dead cat and a living cat the same object? Heisenberg: you can either determine the speed of a particle or its position, never both at the same time. How can they be the same object then? I could go on, and this is just from the science domain. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute. You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object. Yes but not the same object. At least not according to science: Einstein: if you accelerate an object to the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy required to propel it, expand to infinity. Is it still the same object? Schrodinger: The cat is dead or the cat is alive, depends on the observer. Is a dead cat and a living cat the same object? Heisenberg: you can either determine the speed of a particle or its position, never both at the same time. How can they be the same object then? I could go on, and this is just from the science domain. The object changes but the object is still there.Just because water can change states doesn't mean it isn't water. Unless you're trying to tell me science believes there is no object and thus admitting that science also doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|