does
A=A
mean the difference between A and A is nothing?
Meaning there is only one A, and A=A is a self evident fact.
or is
A=A identical only in what they represent? That is, they represent one and the same thing.
Of course since both physical A’s are in different positions on the screen, and are made up of different material, photons etc., and are potentially replicated on hundreds of monitors they are not identical. Far from it, they are only twins.
But there is only one A that is this A and there is no difference between A
That is why “Difference” is not an absolute as it does not exist in singularities.
And even though single things are never perceived in isolation there existence is unrefutable.
Unfortunately I haven’t had time to keep up on this thread, but I wanted to post a reply to JThunder’s claim that it is logically impossible that there is no absolute truth. I apologize if this has already been posted within the past 80-ish replies.
You’ve completely missed the point of my bringing up the liar’s paradox. It is not logically impossible that somebody should always lie (it might be practically difficult, but that’s beside the point), but it is logically impossible for somebody to claim that they always lie. This is why the claim “I always lie” is not false, but is instead indeterminate. Similarly, it is ignorant to claim that the statement “There are no absolute truths” is false due to its being contradictory – the statement is indeterminate, not false, because it is logically possible that there are no absolute truths yet it is logically impossible to put forth such a claim. All you manage to accomplish by claiming that the position that “there are no absolute truths” is logically impossible is to show that logic itself is incomplete, something that hardly gives credence to your position.
I don’t recall that we’ve ever had evidence of a singularity.
What’s in my fruit bowl right now? Nothing.
Does that mean nothing is absolute?
Surely there is a singularity for it, right!?
Mono = irreconcialable stasis from where I’m sitting.
If every single thing is unique, like this A , are they not all singularities?
Otherwise what is it that defines their uniqueness? If one can state this A is difference from this A and all other A’s –then there is only one of each.
Your fruit bowl is full even when it is empty, but what it is full of cannot be perceived by the naked human sense organs alone.
What is nothing?
Nothing by definition doesn’t exist, except as a concept, which is not it.[Although some say nothing or the void underline all existence.]
nothing is unknowable. But if it does exist then I would say it is a singularity for it’s indivisible.
I would agree that “difference exists” in a declaritive way (not saying there is a “thing” called “difference”) is as absolute of a truth as I can imagine. I can’t honestly say I can even think otherwise. But, for all that, the world doesn’t seem to depend on my imagination, so it might not be absolutely true, either.
With due respect given to the complexity of this debate, and my admission that I have no
academic background in logic, I’d like to present the following:
When I was in college I spent a great deal of personal time thinking about absolute truths. The
only given I assumed was that for any thing to be ‘absolute’ it had to be true at all times - past,
present and future.
I eventually came to the realization that the only possible truth for all time was entropy – that all
things will eventually change. Further, in saying that, all other absolute truths were thereby
rendered impossible – since any physical thing could change over time, any absolute statment about an object over all time could not be supported since it would eventually become something else.
Perhaps this is too simplistic – however, it seems that the existence of any object (which
assumes everything actually exists and is not someone’s dream, etc. – but I am NOT going there)
is derived from its component sub-atomic parts, all of which decay over time (yes, billions of
years, but still measurable time). So, eventually everything will become something else, making
any declaratory statement about an object (i.e. this is a cup) impossible in any absolute sense (i.e.
I dropped the cup, so now the cup has become landfill). As for non-physical abstract absolute truths – I
found those to be impossible to demonstrate since I believe actual empirical observation is
necessary to demonstrate something to be true.
Carriage returns are unnecessary. Your text box should wrap automatically. Enter two CRs for a new paragraph. This will make your posts easier for us to read.
And incidentally, you’re talking about Temporal Logic, possibly the toughest of all the higher logics.
If A’s uniqueness or “difference” is its commonality then A is not different by virtue of the fact that it is A, but rather its “difference” is synonymous with its existence.
I exist therefore I am different.
difference = existence
Existence is a relationship.
Yet things have a unique relationship to themselves in that they cannot act upon themselves in the similar fashion they act upon others things.
Their relationship to themselves cannot be defined as one of “difference”
A is different then B and other A’s
But A is not different to A, if this A is that A.
Rather, A in relation to itself ---------IS
I exist therefore I am.
If A were different to itself it wouldn’t be A Abe User
If entropy is an absolute such that everything is in constant change and change is perceived as movement, what does “change” stand in relation to that defines it.
Isn’t change is understood in relation to >>no change<< ?
That would imply that there is something that does not change.
If so entropy is not absolute
If so, —What is it?----
Interesting point Iamthat. In response I would suggest that change is relative to the object undergoing change in its earlier state, rather than against a hypothetical object which undergoes no change. So the object becomes its own reference point, eliminating the need for a second (hypothetical) reference object which does not change.
Also, your other point about ‘change being perceived as movement’ brings up an earlier (and admittedly hazier) related theory.
Given that time is a relative concept (see Einstein’s theories) that is measured by movement of objects in a defined period, if one were to eliminate movement on the sub-atomic level, which in theory occurs at absolute zero (and is, of course, as theoretically inachievable as the speed of light) then time would stop. When time stops, entropy stops since nothing changes.
However, entropy would revive if things start moving again, which would occur at 1 degree kelvin. So, entropy is not an absolute truth at zero degrees kelvin, however, then every object could be defined as an absolute truth because if time stops and nothing changes then everything stays the same and can be expressed as an absolute. If this exception was considered fatal to the premise, then no solution can be found, simply because any truth has to be defined within the confines of the universe as we know it (where absolute zero is impossible), but if we were to allow for impossibilities, then no theroy could ever be made about anything.
Time would have stopped when entropy could no longer increase (entropy being the log of some number of states under some condition which I don’t remember). AFAIK many consider increasing time = increasing entropy.
If there really are virtual particles and interactions, absolute zero is impossible, though entropy needn’t increase if I understand things correctly.
If change is recognized as a distinction between a remembered event [object] and a current one then it doesn’t actually take place, at least not in the present. It is merely a distinction between what was and what is.
And therefore is relative, to the present >>distinction<<. It is relative to the perception of it. No, distinction , [perceived] no change.
But nothing changes in the NOW
Entropy doesn’t exist in the present moment.
Change like time is an illusion. —so I think.
Is it possible to eliminate movement? I suspect not, especially since the observer is always in motion.
And if time is relative, so is change, ---------no?
You are correct in stating that the observer alters the data by his mere presence (a/k/a The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). However, at some point you have to accept an observation as accurate data, whether in the abstract or written, photgraphed, or digitally scanned. What you address relates to the limitations of recording technology, not the actual change occuring to the object. Yes, a perfect observation which has no effect on the subject of the experiment is theoretically impossible, however, if we were to apply your premise, we could never conduct any type of experiment whatsoever. My point requires that one accept that Object A Time B is different that Object A at Time Z, when Object A has changed between time B and Time Z due to entropy.
Memory is not the yardstick of change. Human memory is unbelievably flawed (wait, where are my keys??) and nearly useless as a method of data gathering. The observer does not need to be a party to the hypothesis in observing the change, only the object itself is present. And as for your statement that change and time are an illusion, please provide some specific scientific support for this monumental concept. Additionally, note that even gravity has changed (per Big Bang theory relating to the first micro-seconds of the universe).
Also, your point about entropy not existing in the moment is similar to my discussion about absolute zero. Agreed, entropy doesn’t exist if you stop time – but again – if we were to allow for impossibilities, then no theory could ever be made about anything.
I’m going to accept JThunder’s argument that absolute truths must exist, as its negation is self-contradicting. What about the following statement, however: This statement is the only absolute truth. Can that statement be disproven?
Hmm…I anticipate a problem. How about: This statement and the statement, “Absolute truths exist,” are the only absolute truths. I can’t see anything else implied by that.
I think one way of postulating an absolute of difference is posing the question: Is there such a thing as motion without change?
I’ll be the first to admit that this absolute doesn’t imply motion; as the motion of difference can only move without being absolutely different over the course of motion.
There is a phenomenon of similarity which equally suggests by the first absolute that no two things can be exactly the same.
I believe the very perception that we have concludes a structural blocking of things like “change changing” “motion moving”; as they become nothing. How does nothing, nothing itself? Such a concession would ruin standardization, and would personally make existence wholly pointless to myself.
Whatever this ‘barrier’ is, I’m assuming by our very existence that it bounces ‘concepts’ back at each-other instead of allowing them to actually escape to that degree. The only other position I can concieve would be that something comes from nothing and something becomes nothing. As a logical being, I wouldn’t waste any time embracing an absolute (as crazy as this sounds to be an absolute).
I would really begin to ramble if I delved into my theories involving motion itself in regards to the first absolute I personally consider. Difference. I do however find it untenable to suggest that motion can exist without difference; however I can somehow conceieve difference existing without motion. So that is why I do what I do in regards to this concept. I believe similarilty is a property of this seemingly imposed barrier; in that none of it ever attains an escape velocity to this degree; and as such is force to interact within a perameter of complexity (however, I won’t assert something like that as my opinion, rather it is used to illustrate my generalized intuition - opinions about motion would take lots of typing).
Also, Abe User; I’m a simpleton issuing my interest in the subject through this forum, much moreso than many of the others present here. Welcome =)
Iamthat, singularities bug me. I’m far too hungry and tired to delve much right now though.
I was thinking of human memory assisted by any and/or all forms of technology, plus memory evident as change in objects. I should have been more clear.
The “actual [observed] change occurring in objects” as you say, is a form of memory.
I don’t think one can deny that entropy or change is observed through/in these processes and events.
Memory is memory, it doesn’t really matter how it is acquired or what contains or stores it. It is basically a recording of chronological events up to this present moment.
My point is that knowledge [as opposed to belief or guesses] of past events [and changes in objects] and their relation to current ones is relative to the distinctions made through observations.
No observation,>>no distinction, >>no memory, no >>[known] change.
I agree.
That is speculation on your part that the observed and observer exist independently of each other.
But I do agree that even if they don’t change appears to occur.
I don’t think there is any scientific support that time and change are an illusion but there is also no proof that they are not.
Both are guesses.
But I would say if the passage of time cannot be seized in the present moment, which is changeless or beyond movement, how do we get from the present to the future?
Perhaps it is nothing more then a succession of unbroken moments, or instants. Meaning the movement or change is illusory.
The present moment is not an impossibility, it is always here.
But what is its duration? I think it would have to be faster then the speed of light otherwise we would perceive strobes.
Another point is that I think consciousness may not be affected by change. It may be a passive observer to the contents.
